Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud)

[brg444]

We should be able to test this empirically: if the theory is true, then, for example, we should never have a sustained period in the future where the total fees collected by miners is significantly greater than the aggregate losses due to orphaning.

1) We definitely should. We must let the pressure build up and see if the network effect alone can hold it. Maybe even let the pressure leave for a while.

The question is whether or not we have a choice.  My prediction is that there will never be a sustained period in the future where aggregate fees are significantly greater than aggregate losses due to orphaning.  The protocol will fork (or demand will leak somewhere else) before this happens.

Let's say "sustained" = more than 6 months and "significantly greater" = more than double.

A protocol fork implies enormously more costs and potential loss than a pivot toward alternatives. Please don't pretend the two are proportional options. They are not.

Personally, I see the protocol fork as the path of least resistance.

Anyways, regardless of what either of us think, my hypothesis can easily be proven wrong. All it would take is for aggregate fees to be significantly higher than aggregate losses due to orphaning over a sustained period.  I believe this will not happen in the future.

But time will tell.

 

Yeah sure, bootstrapping a new economy surely is the path of least resistance, not cashing out to fiat to make whatever purchase you're trying to make....

By protocol fork, I just mean increasing the block size limit to satisfy demand.  I don't understand how that implies "bootstrapping a new economy."  Can you explain?

Look Peter it's quite simple, either you accept that for the block size to increase consensus needs to be reach by all actors of the Bitcoin market or you continue pretending that the demand of consumers & merchants for lower cost transactions will move the needle which it won't in that case if they "fork" it will be in their own cheap little altcoin.

[jonald_fyookball]

Look Peter it's quite simple, either you accept that for the block size to increase consensus needs to be reach by all actors of the Bitcoin market or you continue pretending that the demand of consumers & merchants for lower cost transactions will move the needle which it won't in that case if they "fork" it will be in their own cheap little altcoin.

You love going around in circles, don't you? 

As knight22 already explained a few times, there's no such thing as perfect consensus.

Do you refuse to accept the possibility that an economic majority will have their way and increase the blocksize even though you don't agree?

[figmentofmyass]

Look Peter it's quite simple, either you accept that for the block size to increase consensus needs to be reach by all actors of the Bitcoin market or you continue pretending that the demand of consumers & merchants for lower cost transactions will move the needle which it won't in that case if they "fork" it will be in their own cheap little altcoin.

You love going around in circles, don't you? 

As knight22 already explained a few times, there's no such thing as perfect consensus.

Do you refuse to accept the possibility that an economic majority will have their way and increase the blocksize even though you don't agree?

isn't the very idea of an "economic majority" tied to consensus? if the miners don't support industry players, that doesn't mean the miners can be ignored. the lower we place the threshold for a hard fork, the more likely we will see a "civil war" play out as Nick Szabo pointed out. that's why hashing power is paramount to the concerns of Bitpay et al.

[brg444]

Look Peter it's quite simple, either you accept that for the block size to increase consensus needs to be reach by all actors of the Bitcoin market or you continue pretending that the demand of consumers & merchants for lower cost transactions will move the needle which it won't in that case if they "fork" it will be in their own cheap little altcoin.

You love going around in circles, don't you?  

As knight22 already explained a few times, there's no such thing as perfect consensus.

Do you refuse to accept the possibility that an economic majority will have their way and increase the blocksize even though you don't agree?

 

The economic majority is the one most interested in keeping the block size small.

The XT #REKT event should have made that clear.

Consumers and merchants are never going to be the economic majority in Bitcoin

[jonald_fyookball]

Do you refuse to accept the possibility that an economic majority will have their way and increase the blocksize even though you don't agree?

The economic majority is the one most interested in keeping the block size small.
 

ill take that as a "yes".

[muyuu]

Are the zero percenters still crying?

Let's remember the only measure that is not vulnerable to sockpuppetry AKA Sybil attacks:


Doubles as the encephalogram of most XTards.

[Trent Russell]

I am quite serious.  If the longest chain contains a block greater than 1 MB by this time next year I win, otherwise you win.  The longest chain is defined as the chain built on top of the Satoshi genesis block with the greatest cumulative difficulty.  If Bitcoin forks, then I only win if the "large block" fork has a greater cumulative difficulty than the "small block" fork.

As for escrow, I am open to suggestions.  Danny Hamilton and Jonald Fyookball come to mind.  We would each deposit 1 BTC into a 2-of-3 multisig address and the escrow would hold the third key.  

Suppose there is more than one chain building on top of the Satoshi genesis block and that the one with the greatest cumulative difficulty does contain a block greater than 1 MB. It's clear you (Peter R) "win." But does that mean you get the 2BTC on every still-active chain? Or only on the one with the greatest cumulative difficulty? That outcome isn't clearly specified by what you're writing.

1BTC is too rich for me, but I could put up 0.5 BTC with the following agreement: This time next year (let's say October 1, 2016) Peter R gets the 1 BTC on every active chain that includes the multisig bet output which contains a block greater than 1 MB. I get the 1 BTC on every other active chain that contains the multisig bet output. "Active chain" means that there were at least 20 consecutive blocks mined on the chain on October 1, 2016.

Unfortunately, there's nothing that can prevent BTC from being spent on any chain, unless the hard-fork makes transactions incompatible between chains.

I've read about the process for chain-specific spending in enough of these threads to think it's not so difficult.

1. Obtain coins that are chain-specific. These could either be descendants of coins mined on one chain or descendents of coins that were purposefully separated on the chains. (Purposeful separation might require several tries, but it's clear how to do it and that it will eventually succeed.)

2. Use chain-specific coins as one of the inputs to the tx being signed.

If I remember correctly, Peter R is one of the people arguing: There won't be more than one active chain. Certainly I've seen Gavin make such an argument. However, it's clearly possible, and any "bet" should take this possibility into account.

[RoadTrain]

I am quite serious.  If the longest chain contains a block greater than 1 MB by this time next year I win, otherwise you win.  The longest chain is defined as the chain built on top of the Satoshi genesis block with the greatest cumulative difficulty.  If Bitcoin forks, then I only win if the "large block" fork has a greater cumulative difficulty than the "small block" fork.

As for escrow, I am open to suggestions.  Danny Hamilton and Jonald Fyookball come to mind.  We would each deposit 1 BTC into a 2-of-3 multisig address and the escrow would hold the third key.  

Suppose there is more than one chain building on top of the Satoshi genesis block and that the one with the greatest cumulative difficulty does contain a block greater than 1 MB. It's clear you (Peter R) "win." But does that mean you get the 2BTC on every still-active chain? Or only on the one with the greatest cumulative difficulty? That outcome isn't clearly specified by what you're writing.

1BTC is too rich for me, but I could put up 0.5 BTC with the following agreement: This time next year (let's say October 1, 2016) Peter R gets the 1 BTC on every active chain that includes the multisig bet output which contains a block greater than 1 MB. I get the 1 BTC on every other active chain that contains the multisig bet output. "Active chain" means that there were at least 20 consecutive blocks mined on the chain on October 1, 2016.

Unfortunately, there's nothing that can prevent BTC from being spent on any chain, unless the hard-fork makes transactions incompatible between chains.

I've read about the process for chain-specific spending in enough of these threads to think it's not so difficult.

1. Obtain coins that are chain-specific. These could either be descendants of coins mined on one chain or descendents of coins that were purposefully separated on the chains. (Purposeful separation might require several tries, but it's clear how to do it and that it will eventually succeed.)

2. Use chain-specific coins as one of the inputs to the tx being signed.

If I remember correctly, Peter R is one of the people arguing: There won't be more than one active chain. Certainly I've seen Gavin make such an argument. However, it's clearly possible, and any "bet" should take this possibility into account.

Yep, mixing a spend with chain-specific inputs can work. It's a workaround, though, as one would have to provide these inputs.

[erik777]

I am quite serious.  If the longest chain contains a block greater than 1 MB by this time next year I win, otherwise you win.  The longest chain is defined as the chain built on top of the Satoshi genesis block with the greatest cumulative difficulty.  If Bitcoin forks, then I only win if the "large block" fork has a greater cumulative difficulty than the "small block" fork.

As for escrow, I am open to suggestions.  Danny Hamilton and Jonald Fyookball come to mind.  We would each deposit 1 BTC into a 2-of-3 multisig address and the escrow would hold the third key.  

Suppose there is more than one chain building on top of the Satoshi genesis block and that the one with the greatest cumulative difficulty does contain a block greater than 1 MB. It's clear you (Peter R) "win." But does that mean you get the 2BTC on every still-active chain? Or only on the one with the greatest cumulative difficulty? That outcome isn't clearly specified by what you're writing.

1BTC is too rich for me, but I could put up 0.5 BTC with the following agreement: This time next year (let's say October 1, 2016) Peter R gets the 1 BTC on every active chain that includes the multisig bet output which contains a block greater than 1 MB. I get the 1 BTC on every other active chain that contains the multisig bet output. "Active chain" means that there were at least 20 consecutive blocks mined on the chain on October 1, 2016.

Unfortunately, there's nothing that can prevent BTC from being spent on any chain, unless the hard-fork makes transactions incompatible between chains.

I've read about the process for chain-specific spending in enough of these threads to think it's not so difficult.

1. Obtain coins that are chain-specific. These could either be descendants of coins mined on one chain or descendents of coins that were purposefully separated on the chains. (Purposeful separation might require several tries, but it's clear how to do it and that it will eventually succeed.)

2. Use chain-specific coins as one of the inputs to the tx being signed.

If I remember correctly, Peter R is one of the people arguing: There won't be more than one active chain. Certainly I've seen Gavin make such an argument. However, it's clearly possible, and any "bet" should take this possibility into account.

Yep, mixing a spend with chain-specific inputs can work. It's a workaround, though, as one would have to provide these inputs.

Would this require a fork to enhance scripts, or are we saying today's scripting do this? 

[DooMAD]

Look Peter it's quite simple, either you accept that for the block size to increase consensus needs to be reach by all actors of the Bitcoin market or you continue pretending that the demand of consumers & merchants for lower cost transactions will move the needle which it won't in that case if they "fork" it will be in their own cheap little altcoin.

You love going around in circles, don't you?  

As knight22 already explained a few times, there's no such thing as perfect consensus.

Do you refuse to accept the possibility that an economic majority will have their way and increase the blocksize even though you don't agree?

 

The economic majority is the one most interested in keeping the block size small.

The XT #REKT event should have made that clear.

Consumers and merchants are never going to be the economic majority in Bitcoin

Not by themselves, perhaps, but throw a few others into the mix and the picture starts to look a little different.


Larger (than 1MB) blocks will naturally provide benefit to:

Anyone who wants to use Bitcoin as a payments network
VC investors
Miners
Merchants
Payment processors
Average users in general

Smaller blocks will naturally provide benefit to:

Those who want to use Bitcoin as an asset class (i.e. not the average user)
Those wanting to run full nodes cheaply (i.e. not the average user)
Those who don't care if the average user is priced off the main chain (i.e. definitely not the average user)

Pretty sure that first group will agree on a proposal before too long.  We'll see if you're right about them not being an economic majority.  

[hdbuck]

what would mike tyson want?

[Velkro]

To Gavin & Mike : resignation letters can be handed to the reception desk.

Time to call Bitcoin XT what it is: the biggest fail in altcoin history

Whatever with Bitcoin XT, but blocksize increase MUST happen quite soon.

[hdbuck]

To Gavin & Mike : resignation letters can be handed to the reception desk.

Time to call Bitcoin XT what it is: the biggest fail in altcoin history

Whatever with Bitcoin XT, but blocksize increase MUST happen quite soon.

meh, no kiddin. if YOU (and all the crying babies) insist..

[CIYAM]

Whatever with Bitcoin XT, but blocksize increase MUST happen quite soon.

Why *MUST* it?

You did notice that BitPay has already sacked most of their employees today because basically their business model isn't working (i.e. hardly anyone is buying anything with Bitcoin).

I really don't know why having bigger blocks is going to somehow attract more people to use Bitcoin to pay for things (as there is basically no logic to this thinking at all).

[hdbuck]

Whatever with Bitcoin XT, but blocksize increase MUST happen quite soon.

Why *MUST* it?

You did notice that BitPay has already sacked most of their employees today because basically their business model isn't working (i.e. hardly anyone is buying anything with Bitcoin).

payment processor much?


nahh.. bitcoin be more like:






edit: get lost ph0rkers! you shall not be missed in any case, in any way! dam you altcoin suckerzzz, statist shills and clueless n000bs!

[VeritasSapere]

Look Peter it's quite simple, either you accept that for the block size to increase consensus needs to be reach by all actors of the Bitcoin market or you continue pretending that the demand of consumers & merchants for lower cost transactions will move the needle which it won't in that case if they "fork" it will be in their own cheap little altcoin.

You love going around in circles, don't you?  

As knight22 already explained a few times, there's no such thing as perfect consensus.

Do you refuse to accept the possibility that an economic majority will have their way and increase the blocksize even though you don't agree?

 

The economic majority is the one most interested in keeping the block size small.

The XT #REKT event should have made that clear.

Consumers and merchants are never going to be the economic majority in Bitcoin

Not by themselves, perhaps, but throw a few others into the mix and the picture starts to look a little different.


Larger (than 1MB) blocks will naturally provide benefit to:

Anyone who wants to use Bitcoin as a payments network
VC investors
Miners
Merchants
Payment processors
Average users in general

Smaller blocks will naturally provide benefit to:

Those who want to use Bitcoin as an asset class (i.e. not the average user)
Those wanting to run full nodes cheaply (i.e. not the average user)
Those who don't care if the average user is priced off the main chain (i.e. definitely not the average user)

Pretty sure that first group will agree on a proposal before too long.  We'll see if you're right about them not being an economic majority.  

I agree with this statement except for one of the points, smaller blocks does not make Bitcoin a better asset class. The blocksize has absolutely no relationship to how Bitcoin functions as a commodity. Actually it can be argued that smaller blocks will reduce the value of Bitcoin as a commodity since this would also reduce the utility of Bitcoin.

Just to be clear with everyone here, a commodity can also be used as a currency, precious metals in the form ancient coins have served this purpose for humanity for millennia. It has only been in the last century that currency has been separated from also being a commodity, which is why some people might still cling on to this flawed idea that we have inherited from fiat. Which is that Bitcoin must either be a commodity or a currency, this is not the case because the reality is that Bitcoin can do both things just like gold and silver coins did in the ancient world.

[coalitionfor8mb]

We should be able to test this empirically: if the theory is true, then, for example, we should never have a sustained period in the future where the total fees collected by miners is significantly greater than the aggregate losses due to orphaning.

1) We definitely should. We must let the pressure build up and see if the network effect alone can hold it. Maybe even let the pressure leave for a while.

The question is whether or not we have a choice.  My prediction is that there will never be a sustained period in the future where aggregate fees are significantly greater than aggregate losses due to orphaning.  The protocol will fork (or demand will leak somewhere else) before this happens.

Let's say "sustained" = more than 6 months and "significantly greater" = more than double.

Oh, that's the third "key"!

The third "key" is the understanding that you have the first "two"!
It's the reason most of the people who understand Bitcoin are into it. The understanding of it's core value proposition is the greatest attractor here. That's by the way where the "economic pressure" comes from in the first place.

Do we have a choice?
Everyone of us personally?
Yes, absolutely!

Now, let's see, who is going to benefit from the removal of the block size limit.
1) Businesses. Yes, they are likely sitting on a decent network connection and will be able to process more txs and serve more customers.
2) Miners. Yes, they will move to a better network connection and be able to process more transactions with fees and gain more profits.
3) Users. Yes and No. It depends.

Users will benefit from the growing economy (driven by the first two categories of players) via profits they derive from the coins they still hold, but they will lose the ability to validate the rules of the game. It's a scenario where the users of Bitcoin become mere consumers. They no longer have a say in the way this particular economic environment operates.

Losing that second "key" (to access and maintain the blockchain in a permissionless way) puts the first "key" (the private one that holds the coins) in danger as well, as the new rules may develop into something that won't allow the users to receive and spend those coins in a permissionless way. That's where the whole ecosystem turns into something that defeats the purpose of Bitcoin in the first place.


Bitcoin (the network) is undoubtedly a "star", that produces bitcoins (the currency) and all the other goods that come with it. What holds the star together? The gravity and the sheer mass of its outer shell. It's the massive network of validating full nodes that prevents the large businesses and miners from colluding and forging the rules, but those active profit-driven players are definitely needed as well.

The only way for Bitcoin to continue as intended (to shine as a "star" that is) is if the mass of its users is well aware of what is it they are doing and why. A proper balance between the two forces in the ecosystem needs to be sought for it to become successful.

Changing the protocol rules is identical to a relatively rare and discreet transition stages that any star undergoes in order to find a new balance point, when the old one no longer serves its accumulated mass. That's when the block size limit needs to be raised. The new limit needs to resonate with the whole ecosystem as it's supposed to represent the interests of the whole. It needs to preserve enough mass in the outer shell (users and validators), but leave enough space and entropy for internal competition (businesses and miners) to continue to produce goods with higher energy levels than before.

Any protocol change needs to be checked against those three "keys" outlined above in order to preserve the original core value proposition that made the whole system attractive (and brought the economic pressure in) in the first place. If (in case of too small blocks) most of the economic activity moves off-chain (sidechains and such), while actual bitcoins are "parked" somewhere else, then the first "key" is in jeopardy, as people are no longer holding (and transacting with) their bitcoins per se. If (in case of fairly large blocks) too much of the economic activity is happening on-chain, then the second "key" is in danger, as people no longer have permissionless access to blockchain and cannot validate the rules. If people are clueless about the way things are, then the third "key" is missing and they need to find one first. If you managed to get this far and read the above, you got it!

Oh, and by the way, Bitcoin is not above the law, it is The Law and it Reigns Supreme!

[CIYAM]

Now, let's see, who is going to benefit from the removal of the block size limit.
1) Businesses. Yes, they are likely sitting on a decent network connection and will be able to process more txs and serve more customers.

Maybe you didn't read that BitPay has sacked most of their staff today basically because "there are hardly any customers" (at least not enough to sustain their current business model).

So we should increase the block size for businesses to serve customers that actually "don't exist"?

[hdbuck]

We should be able to test this empirically: if the theory is true, then, for example, we should never have a sustained period in the future where the total fees collected by miners is significantly greater than the aggregate losses due to orphaning.

1) We definitely should. We must let the pressure build up and see if the network effect alone can hold it. Maybe even let the pressure leave for a while.

The question is whether or not we have a choice.  My prediction is that there will never be a sustained period in the future where aggregate fees are significantly greater than aggregate losses due to orphaning.  The protocol will fork (or demand will leak somewhere else) before this happens.

Let's say "sustained" = more than 6 months and "significantly greater" = more than double.

Oh, that's the third "key"!

The third "key" is the understanding that you have the first "two"!
It's the reason most of the people who understand Bitcoin are into it. The understanding of it's core value proposition is the greatest attractor here. That's by the way where the "economic pressure" comes from in the first place.

Do we have a choice?
Everyone of us personally?
Yes, absolutely!

Now, let's see, who is going to benefit from the removal of the block size limit.
1) Businesses. Yes, they are likely sitting on a decent network connection and will be able to process more txs and serve more customers.
2) Miners. Yes, they will move to a better network connection and be able to process more transactions with fees and gain more profits.
3) Users. Yes and No. It depends.

Users will benefit from the growing economy (driven by the first two categories of players) via profits they derive from the coins they still hold, but they will lose the ability to validate the rules of the game. It's a scenario where the users of Bitcoin become mere consumers. They no longer have a say in the way this particular economic environment operates.

Losing that second "key" (to access and maintain the blockchain in a permissionless way) puts the first "key" (the private one that holds the coins) in danger as well, as the new rules may develop into something that won't allow the users to receive and spend those coins in a permissionless way. That's where the whole ecosystem turns into something that defeats the purpose of Bitcoin in the first place.


Bitcoin (the network) is undoubtedly a "star", that produces bitcoins (the currency) and all the other goods that come with it. What holds the star together? The gravity and the sheer mass of its outer shell. It's the massive network of validating full nodes that prevents the large businesses and miners from colluding and forging the rules, but those active profit-driven players are definitely needed as well.

The only way for Bitcoin to continue as intended (to shine as a "star" that is) is if the mass of its users is well aware of what is it they are doing and why. A proper balance between the two forces in the ecosystem needs to be sought for it to become successful.

Changing the protocol rules is identical to a relatively rare and discreet transition stages that any star undergoes in order to find a new balance point, when the old one no longer serves its accumulated mass. That's when the block size limit needs to be raised. The new limit needs to resonate with the whole ecosystem as it's supposed to represent the interests of the whole. It needs to preserve enough mass in the outer shell (users and validators), but leave enough space and entropy for internal competition (businesses and miners) to continue to produce goods with a higher energy levels than before.

Any protocol change needs to be checked against those three "keys" outlined above in order to preserve the original core value proposition that made the whole system attractive (and brought the economic pressure in) in the first place. If (in case of too small blocks) most of the economic activity moves off-chain (sidechains and such), while actual bitcoins are "parked" somewhere else, then the first "key" is in jeopardy, as people are no longer holding (and transacting with) their bitcoins per se. If (in case of fairly large blocks) too much of the economic activity is happening on-chain, then the second "key" is in danger, as people no longer have permissionless access to blockchain and cannot validate the rules. If people are clueless about the way things are, then the third "key" is missing and they need to find one first. If you managed to get this far and read the above, you got it!

Oh, and by the way, Bitcoin is not above the law, it is The Law and it Reigns Supreme!

[coalitionfor8mb]

Now, let's see, who is going to benefit from the removal of the block size limit.
1) Businesses. Yes, they are likely sitting on a decent network connection and will be able to process more txs and serve more customers.

Maybe you didn't read that BitPay has sacked most of their staff today basically because "there are hardly any customers" (at least not enough to sustain their current business model).

So we should increase the block size for businesses to serve customers that actually "don't exist"?

There is no reason why businesses shouldn't benefit from larger block sizes, unless of course people are conscious enough not to use those businesses that are trying to put them out of the game. In the case above, they likely over-projected in their business plans somewhere.