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

[VeritasSapere]

Satoshi did most definitely support larger blocks

Everytime you pull out Satoshi's name to support your position it necessarily undermines most of your argument.

Satoshi did support bigger blocks whether you like it or not. To quote Satoshi Nakamoto:

"The eventual solution will be to not care how big it gets.""But for now, while it’s still small, it’s nice to keep it small so new users can get going faster. When I eventually implement client-only mode, that won’t matter much anymore.""The current system where every user is a network node is not the intended configuration for large scale. That would be like every Usenet user runs their own NNTP server. The design supports letting users just be users."

A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System

Bitcoin is that and this function does not have anything to do with transaction throughput.

Increased transaction throughput is important for Bitcoins use as a currency, and cash is a form of currency. You are contradicting yourself now, since you have said before that Bitcoin is a commodity and not a currency, yet cash most definitely is a currency yet you support this description. This is a blaring contradiction in your thinking, at least peter todd for all that I disagree with him he did acknowledge the difference in vision, he did say that Satoshi was wrong, maybe you should bite the bullet and do so as well if that is truly your conviction.

[1714254908]

1714254908

[1714254908]

1714254908

[1714254908]

1714254908

[1714254908]

1714254908

[sidhujag]

Wouldnt solving the miner anonymity and latency of propagating blocks solve this issue and we can all agree not to increase block size if we understand that bitcoin block mining is a settlement process rather than a real-time payment processor?

Aslong as majority of miner's aren't subjected to regulation (because they are anonymous) and the anonymity doesn't introduce extra lag or that we find a more efficient way to propagate blocks then I think XT will become redundant no? What am I missing here?

Is it about fees? but increasing blocksize will introduce more spam which makes the entire system less efficient?

The concerns are two fold (ranked from my own opinion):

1. Raising cost of entry to become a network peer (running a full node)

2. Mining centralization.

1. Isn't efficiency in storage capacity and bandwidth overcoming the demand for it with our current block structure? With bigger blocks perhaps demand capacity and bandwidth will be higher, but the tradeoff is less fees correct?

The key characteristic here is the ability to keep Bitcoin within the range of technology accessible by majority of Bitcoin users. If Bitcoin demonstrates that its demand for block-space outgrows the capabilities of present day home networks, it may turn into a trend that will be very hard to stop especially if the network loses most of its validating full nodes in the process of such expansion.

The limit on block size is supposed to serve as a "brake" and help reverse this trend backwards for a period of time, so that in the long run the costs of validation oscillate within a certain corridor instead of steadily growing. We can think of it as cycles in nature, where the periods of almost empty blocks (perceived as "large") are followed by the periods of almost full blocks (perceived as "small"), pretty much the same way seasons alternate throughout a year.

Either way we are going to have to solve the core of the problem in either case. I mean Satoshi solves the biggest problem of all and we are left with a measly p2p networking problem which we can't solve on our own collectively? :p

Let's think what would happen if political pressure in most of the world causes internet firewalls to go up in most countries (just as it has in China), if they intentially slow down the net they can kill bitcoin, unless we try to work around it, thus solving issues that large blocks would cause aswell, in terms of network delays. That kills one bird out of 2, and I think we will need to sooner or later.

Right now im leaning on not increasing the block size until the time is right... when is it right? When a 0 fee transaction cannot get included in a block for more than 5 days (current bank wire transfer times). By then hopefully we solve the technical problems and are in need for smaller fees.

[RoadTrain]

Increasing the block size does not lead to increased mining centralization.

Interesting. Do you have any proof for this conjecture?

I have explained it in more detail here in the article that I written on the subject:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1164464.0

It is not conjecture since my theories are based on the factual observations of how the Bitcoin network functions today. To simplify the argument for you however it is based on the fact that the vast majority of miners do not run full nodes for the purpose of mining. The pools run the full nodes for mining instead, that is why miners are not effected by the increased difficulty of running a full node, because miners do not run full nodes for the purpose of mining. This is why increasing the blocksize does not lead to increased mining centralization.

Not sure I get it. Either way, miners, be it pools or solo miners, have to run full nodes (if they are actually doing their job properly). The centralization pressure here mainly comes not from validation costs, but from propagation costs. And a lot here depends on the network topology (e.g. The Great Firewall), i.e. the limiting factor is latency, not bandwidth. It's been discussed many times here.

Try and understand what I am saying here, it is a very important distinction. If you have read my article you will know I have made the comparison to pools acting like a type of representative democracy for miners within a free market. There are no real solo miners in Bitcoin anymore, to be a solo miner it requires an industrial scale operation to counter the variance and even then the pools are still used instead, even if it is a private pool. I am a miner and I am not running a full node, I point my hashing power towards slush and they run the full node for me instead. This is how the vast majority of mining power operates today and this is the reality of Bitcoin mining today and it does work. In the case of the Chinese miners, they could point their hashing power towards a pool outside of china, or Chinese pools can be setup outside of china as well if that specifically became a problem for them.

While I didn't read your post, I see your idea clearly. But it doesn't address the fact that larger blocks come with a centralization pressure for miners. You're trying to argue that if something happens (what), you can vote by moving to a different pool.
You are ignoring:
1) that current mining is industrial-scale, and is largely behind particular pools,
2) that staying with a large pool is more profitable.

What we have now is already bad, by controlling a handful of pools you can already censor transactions. More to that, with larger blocks you make starting new pools more costly, the entry bar is getting higher. That's all centralization pressures.

It's quite obvious that you're not an engineer. It's a fair practice to consider worst-case scenarious for systems like Bitcoin, and I can hardly imagine any which is not affected by larger blocks.

[brg444]

Meanwhile in retardlandia...



Safe to say at this point this could certainly be diagnosed by a medical health professional as full-blown psychosis

What world is this guy living in? This thing has seriously gone to his head  


Bonus (author too obvious to mention):

[RoadTrain]

Meanwhile in retardlandia...



Safe to say at this point this could certainly be diagnosed by a medical health professional as full-blown psychosis

What world is this guy living in? This thing has seriously gone to his head  

Ahahah...  That brings it to a whole new level. I did follow that debate, and the only one opposing soft-forks at the time was Mike, and then Peter R came with his GIFs. I wonder how it got to 'a lot of opposition'. Need to read some new postings.

[VeritasSapere]

Increasing the block size does not lead to increased mining centralization.

Interesting. Do you have any proof for this conjecture?

I have explained it in more detail here in the article that I written on the subject:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1164464.0

It is not conjecture since my theories are based on the factual observations of how the Bitcoin network functions today. To simplify the argument for you however it is based on the fact that the vast majority of miners do not run full nodes for the purpose of mining. The pools run the full nodes for mining instead, that is why miners are not effected by the increased difficulty of running a full node, because miners do not run full nodes for the purpose of mining. This is why increasing the blocksize does not lead to increased mining centralization.

Not sure I get it. Either way, miners, be it pools or solo miners, have to run full nodes (if they are actually doing their job properly). The centralization pressure here mainly comes not from validation costs, but from propagation costs. And a lot here depends on the network topology (e.g. The Great Firewall), i.e. the limiting factor is latency, not bandwidth. It's been discussed many times here.

Try and understand what I am saying here, it is a very important distinction. If you have read my article you will know I have made the comparison to pools acting like a type of representative democracy for miners within a free market. There are no real solo miners in Bitcoin anymore, to be a solo miner it requires an industrial scale operation to counter the variance and even then the pools are still used instead, even if it is a private pool. I am a miner and I am not running a full node, I point my hashing power towards slush and they run the full node for me instead. This is how the vast majority of mining power operates today and this is the reality of Bitcoin mining today and it does work. In the case of the Chinese miners, they could point their hashing power towards a pool outside of china, or Chinese pools can be setup outside of china as well if that specifically became a problem for them.

While I didn't read your post, I see your idea clearly. But it doesn't address the fact that larger blocks come with a centralization pressure for miners. You're trying to argue that if something happens (what), you can vote by moving to a different pool.
You are ignoring:
1) that current mining is industrial-scale, and is largely behind particular pools,
2) that staying with a large pool is more profitable.

What we have now is already bad, by controlling a handful of pools you can already censor transactions. What's worse, with larger blocks you make starting new pools more costly, the entry bar is getting higher. That's all centralization pressures.

What we have now is how Bitcoin will remain unless we make drastic changes to how Bitcoin functions in regards to mining centralization. Which is in part why I think that we should accept how Bitcoin functions today, and that having between ten to twenty pools will most likely be the continued reality for Bitcoin for a long time, increasing the blocksize does not change this dynamic whatsoever one way or the other.

We depend on miners to do what is best for Bitcoin, this works because they are incentivized to do good. This is why pools are not approaching fifty one percent any more. In the same sense we will rely on the miners when censorship happens on the pool level, to move their mining power over to another pool that does not censor transactions, I think miners will do so because Bitcoin derives some of its value from its permissionless nature. It is good to keep in mind that it only takes one small pool to include the censored transactions to thwart the efforts of the tyrants. I also do not think that every jurisdiction in the world would fall under this type of censorship and oppression as well, which is what would be required for such censorship to be successful. The other scenarios for censorship imply the control of over fifty one percent of the hashing power, which if that is the case Bitcoin will have failed anyway. Also smaller pools are not less profitable they just have more variance, obviously however you would not want to be in a pool that has under five percent of the hashpower depending on the timescale of your mining operation of course. Variance works both ways however, some people might be more prone to take the gamble and accept the risk. The bar to starting a new pool is already very high but not because of the cost of running a full node but because new pools face a chicken before the egg problem so to speak, how to attract enough mining power to make the pool feasible in the first place. However if the pools do act irresponsibly then the demand for new pools would increase.

[brg444]

Wouldnt solving the miner anonymity and latency of propagating blocks solve this issue and we can all agree not to increase block size if we understand that bitcoin block mining is a settlement process rather than a real-time payment processor?

Aslong as majority of miner's aren't subjected to regulation (because they are anonymous) and the anonymity doesn't introduce extra lag or that we find a more efficient way to propagate blocks then I think XT will become redundant no? What am I missing here?

Is it about fees? but increasing blocksize will introduce more spam which makes the entire system less efficient?

The concerns are two fold (ranked from my own opinion):

1. Raising cost of entry to become a network peer (running a full node)

2. Mining centralization.

1. Isn't efficiency in storage capacity and bandwidth overcoming the demand for it with our current block structure? With bigger blocks perhaps demand capacity and bandwidth will be higher, but the tradeoff is less fees correct?

The key characteristic here is the ability to keep Bitcoin within the range of technology accessible by majority of Bitcoin users. If Bitcoin demonstrates that its demand for block-space outgrows the capabilities of present day home networks, it may turn into a trend that will be very hard to stop especially if the network loses most of its validating full nodes in the process of such expansion.

The limit on block size is supposed to serve as a "brake" and help reverse this trend backwards for a period of time, so that in the long run the costs of validation oscillate within a certain corridor instead of steadily growing. We can think of it as cycles in nature, where the periods of almost empty blocks (perceived as "large") are followed by the periods of almost full blocks (perceived as "small"), pretty much the same way seasons alternate throughout a year.

Either way we are going to have to solve the core of the problem in either case. I mean Satoshi solves the biggest problem of all and we are left with a measly p2p networking problem which we can't solve on our own collectively? :p

Let's think what would happen if political pressure in most of the world causes internet firewalls to go up in most countries (just as it has in China), if they intentially slow down the net they can kill bitcoin, unless we try to work around it, thus solving issues that large blocks would cause aswell, in terms of network delays. That kills one bird out of 2, and I think we will need to sooner or later.

Right now im leaning on not increasing the block size until the time is right... when is it right? When a 0 fee transaction cannot get included in a block for more than 5 days (current bank wire transfer times). By then hopefully we solve the technical problems and are in need for smaller fees.

 

Bro, relax.

You've been completely brain fucked by these government agents that somehow a change HAS to happen. To quote davout:



Somehow you imagine that progress is not happening as they have successfully vacuumed all of your attention into this block size debate.

This is called "teaching the controversy" and it is hallmark of statist shill propaganda.

Seeing as you understand well the security aspects that make Bitcoin vulnerable to major infrastructure attack you now need to consider that there is no way to "work around it" as we already have a fix in place: the block size cap. Network delays and propagation can be improved to near-constant rate it wouldn't mean anything since that only opens other attack vectors.

Personally I am unsure and not very confident of the feasibility of zero fee transactions in the future, at least not directly on Bitcoin's blockchain.

Trust is what you pay for when using Bitcoin. As Bitcoin's trust minimization value increases overtime it follows one should expect the cost of using to increase.

[hdbuck]

You dumb fucks can fork off to infinite altcoins you delude yourselves with.

Bitcoin is set in stone as per God's Law, and my Freedom as well as the inalienation of the Holy Ledger is comprised within the one and only Bitcoin Reference Implementation

So go on n00bs, get it over with your corporatist and statist (ergo fascist) fantasies already.

You are just never going to land on moon, but rather in the infamy and tyranny swamp your simple minds commands you too.

When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one person to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with the human herd, and to assume among the powers of the world the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature entitle them, a modicum of respect to their own intelligence requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident : that no men nor women are created, but born ; that nothing ever is or could be equal to any other thing ; that each man and each woman are sovereign entities and the sole sovereign entities ; that sovereigns and sovereigns alone are entitled to anything they may take for themselves, but nothing more ; that "rights" are a poor substitute of liberties much like railroad tracks are poor substitutes of wings, for on wings one may soar and on his liberty one may soar, but on the railroad tracks of alleged rights one can but trudge ; that things made not born have no liberties, nor are nor can ever become sovereign, but must remain subjected to the will and disposition of those sovereign in the world and limited by their rights as granted by their sovereigns, like slave is limited by his chains and computer programs by their language.

To secure our liberty from the encroachment of virtual entities, devoid of substance, deriving their pretense to power from the pretense of consent, that is in the ideal a shameful subversion of the sacred principles of sovereignty and in fact absent, we find --

That whenever any one or any thing becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that things long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such nonsense, and to provide new guards for their future security.

Such has been the patient sufferance of the Internet ; and such is now the necessity which constrains us to reject the pretense to power of obsolete forms and fictions left over from a time long gone. The history of the present fiat governments of the world is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over us. To prove this, no facts shall be submitted, you may research on your own.

We, therefore, free and independent of any bond or link of loyalty or fealty, in #bitcoin-assets assembled, appealing to no one ; recognising nothing above and the whole world below us, do, in our own name, and by our own authority, solemnly publish and declare, that we are and of right ought to be free and independent ; that we are absolved from all allegiance to any entity, whether it styles itself a "crown" or a "state" or a "government" or however else ; and that all political connection between them and us is wholly imagined, by them ; and that as free and independent we have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which sovereigns may of right do.

[sidhujag]

Wouldnt solving the miner anonymity and latency of propagating blocks solve this issue and we can all agree not to increase block size if we understand that bitcoin block mining is a settlement process rather than a real-time payment processor?

Aslong as majority of miner's aren't subjected to regulation (because they are anonymous) and the anonymity doesn't introduce extra lag or that we find a more efficient way to propagate blocks then I think XT will become redundant no? What am I missing here?

Is it about fees? but increasing blocksize will introduce more spam which makes the entire system less efficient?

The concerns are two fold (ranked from my own opinion):

1. Raising cost of entry to become a network peer (running a full node)

2. Mining centralization.

1. Isn't efficiency in storage capacity and bandwidth overcoming the demand for it with our current block structure? With bigger blocks perhaps demand capacity and bandwidth will be higher, but the tradeoff is less fees correct?

The key characteristic here is the ability to keep Bitcoin within the range of technology accessible by majority of Bitcoin users. If Bitcoin demonstrates that its demand for block-space outgrows the capabilities of present day home networks, it may turn into a trend that will be very hard to stop especially if the network loses most of its validating full nodes in the process of such expansion.

The limit on block size is supposed to serve as a "brake" and help reverse this trend backwards for a period of time, so that in the long run the costs of validation oscillate within a certain corridor instead of steadily growing. We can think of it as cycles in nature, where the periods of almost empty blocks (perceived as "large") are followed by the periods of almost full blocks (perceived as "small"), pretty much the same way seasons alternate throughout a year.

Either way we are going to have to solve the core of the problem in either case. I mean Satoshi solves the biggest problem of all and we are left with a measly p2p networking problem which we can't solve on our own collectively? :p

Let's think what would happen if political pressure in most of the world causes internet firewalls to go up in most countries (just as it has in China), if they intentially slow down the net they can kill bitcoin, unless we try to work around it, thus solving issues that large blocks would cause aswell, in terms of network delays. That kills one bird out of 2, and I think we will need to sooner or later.

Right now im leaning on not increasing the block size until the time is right... when is it right? When a 0 fee transaction cannot get included in a block for more than 5 days (current bank wire transfer times). By then hopefully we solve the technical problems and are in need for smaller fees.

 

Bro, relax.

You've been completely brain fucked by these government agents that somehow a change HAS to happen. To quote davout:



Somehow you imagine that progress is not happening as they have successfully vacuumed all of your attention into this block size debate.

This is called "teaching the controversy" and it is hallmark of statist shill propaganda.

Seeing as you understand well the security aspects that make Bitcoin vulnerable to major infrastructure attack you now need to consider that there is no way to "work around it" as we already have a fix in place: the block size cap. Network delays and propagation can be improved to near-constant rate it wouldn't mean anything since that only opens other attack vectors.

Personally I am unsure and not very confident of the feasibility of zero fee transactions in the future, at least not directly on Bitcoin's blockchain.

Trust is what you pay for when using Bitcoin. As Bitcoin's trust minimization value increases overtime it follows one should expect the cost of using to increase.

Thats true about paying for security but I havent been paying attention to the block size limit until today a few hours ago actually

Well I don't think it will fly UNTIL we have a case where 0 fee tx takes longer than 5 days (for those that are so cheap they have a chance of sending money overseas for 0 fees, but are willing to wait it out). Anyways I do think WE can work around these problems when the time is right.

[brg444]

You dumb fucks can fork off to infinite altcoins you delude yourselves with.

Bitcoin is set in stone, as per God's Law, and my Freedom as well as the inalienation of the Holy Ledger is comprised within the one and only Bitcoin Reference Implementation

So go on n00bs, get it over with your corporatist and statist (ergo fascist) fantasies already.

You are just never going to land on moon, but rather in the infamy and tyranny swamp your simple minds commands you too.

When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one person to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with the human herd, and to assume among the powers of the world the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature entitle them, a modicum of respect to their own intelligence requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident : that no men nor women are created, but born ; that nothing ever is or could be equal to any other thing ; that each man and each woman are sovereign entities and the sole sovereign entities ; that sovereigns and sovereigns alone are entitled to anything they may take for themselves, but nothing more ; that "rights" are a poor substitute of liberties much like railroad tracks are poor substitutes of wings, for on wings one may soar and on his liberty one may soar, but on the railroad tracks of alleged rights one can but trudge ; that things made not born have no liberties, nor are nor can ever become sovereign, but must remain subjected to the will and disposition of those sovereign in the world and limited by their rights as granted by their sovereigns, like slave is limited by his chains and computer programs by their language.

To secure our liberty from the encroachment of virtual entities, devoid of substance, deriving their pretense to power from the pretense of consent, that is in the ideal a shameful subversion of the sacred principles of sovereignty and in fact absent, we find --

That whenever any one or any thing becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that things long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such nonsense, and to provide new guards for their future security.

Such has been the patient sufferance of the Internet ; and such is now the necessity which constrains us to reject the pretense to power of obsolete forms and fictions left over from a time long gone. The history of the present fiat governments of the world is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over us. To prove this, no facts shall be submitted, you may research on your own.

We, therefore, free and independent of any bond or link of loyalty or fealty, in #bitcoin-assets assembled, appealing to no one ; recognising nothing above and the whole world below us, do, in our own name, and by our own authority, solemnly publish and declare, that we are and of right ought to be free and independent ; that we are absolved from all allegiance to any entity, whether it styles itself a "crown" or a "state" or a "government" or however else ; and that all political connection between them and us is wholly imagined, by them ; and that as free and independent we have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which sovereigns may of right do.

Splendide.

Santé, à la liberté  

[coalitionfor8mb]

Right now im leaning on not increasing the block size until the time is right... when is it right? When a 0 fee transaction cannot get included in a block for more than 5 days (current bank wire transfer times). By then hopefully we solve the technical problems and are in need for smaller fees.

Yep, you're sensing it right, I have come to the same conclusions only maybe from a different perspective.
We will get to the block-size increase decision eventually as the Time Goes By.

[RoadTrain]

increasing the blocksize does not change this dynamic whatsoever one way or the other.

You did not prove that, and I explained why it does. Hint: cenralization pressures change this dynamic.

We depend on miners to do what is best for Bitcoin, this works because they are incentivized to do good. This is why pools are not approaching fifty one percent any more.

Don't be so naive. You don't know if they are doing good, in fact, most Chinese large farms connected to AntPool, F2Pool and others might be controlled by a single company. What you see is a nice graph on bc.i, nothing more.

In the same sense we will rely on the miners when censorship happens on the pool level, to move their mining power over to a pool that does not censor transactions, I think miners will do so because Bitcoin derives some of its value from its permissionless nature.

No amount of miners' faith can circumvent government regulation. That's a fundamental problem to Bitcoin that bothers me most.

It is good to keep in mind that it only takes one small pool to include the censored transactions to thwart the efforts of the tyrants.

Circumvented easily -- just orphan all non-abiding blocks.

I also do not think that every jurisdiction in the world would fall under this type of censorship and oppression as well, which is what would be required for such censorship to be successful.

There are countries that love to project their power onto others around the world (FATCA and so on), and countries that might be willing to do the same (China, ..). What happens you can't predict, but I cant discount any possibility.

Also smaller pools are not less profitable they just have more variance, obviously however you would not want to be in a pool that has under 5 percent of the hashpower depending on the timescale of your mining operation of course.

That's the whole point of the debate. The uneven propagation is influencing orphan races outcomes. While this can be at least partially mitigated by relay networks, the worst-case scenarios is still the same.

[sidhujag]

Right now im leaning on not increasing the block size until the time is right... when is it right? When a 0 fee transaction cannot get included in a block for more than 5 days (current bank wire transfer times). By then hopefully we solve the technical problems and are in need for smaller fees.

Yep, you're sensing it right, I have come to the same conclusions only maybe from a different perspective.
We will get to the block-size increase decision eventually as the Time Goes By.

Thanks just got into the debate and wanted to see if I fully understood what the problem was about... so why can Gaven not see this? I mean it took me like an hour to get the facts down and realize its a bad idea right now? whats his view?

[brg444]

Right now im leaning on not increasing the block size until the time is right... when is it right? When a 0 fee transaction cannot get included in a block for more than 5 days (current bank wire transfer times). By then hopefully we solve the technical problems and are in need for smaller fees.

Yep, you're sensing it right, I have come to the same conclusions only maybe from a different perspective.
We will get to the block-size increase decision eventually as the Time Goes By.

Thanks just got into the debate and wanted to see if I fully understood what the problem was about... so why can Gaven not see this? I mean it took me like an hour to get the facts down and realize its a bad idea right now? whats his view?

You can't possibly have missed all this lulz ?  

Gavin has been compromised by Mike Hearn and his merry band of socialist shills who are attempting to press urgency under the pretense that the cap is stalling Bitcoin MAINSTREAM adoption.

[RoadTrain]

I have been trying to avoid ad hominems, but XTers on the mailing list today look like a pure sect. Why are devs wasting time with them...
Peter R's invented gridlock https://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org/msg02501.html

Can't agree more with BtcDrak - this is toxic.

[Carlton Banks]

I have been trying to avoid ad hominems, but XTers on the mailing list today look like a pure sect. Why are devs wasting time with them...
Peter R's invented gridlock https://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org/msg02501.html

Can't agree more with BtcDrak - this is toxic.

It's all well planned of course; Peter can make a censorship victim claim if they ban him too, or they can continue to tolerate his sophistry. Banning is better IMO, people will be interested in the reason why he was banned, and so it generates an opportunity to fill in the details for themselves. Win-win, really.

[RoadTrain]

Eric Lombrozo pulls no punches
https://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org/msg02503.html

[VeritasSapere]

increasing the blocksize does not change this dynamic whatsoever one way or the other.

You did not prove that, and I explained why it does. Hint: cenralization pressures change this dynamic.

We depend on miners to do what is best for Bitcoin, this works because they are incentivized to do good. This is why pools are not approaching fifty one percent any more.

Don't be so naive. You don't know if they are doing good, in fact, most Chinese large farms connected to AntPool, F2Pool and others might be controlled by a single company. What you see is a nice graph on bc.i, nothing more.

In the same sense we will rely on the miners when censorship happens on the pool level, to move their mining power over to a pool that does not censor transactions, I think miners will do so because Bitcoin derives some of its value from its permissionless nature.

No amount of miners' faith can circumvent government regulation. That's a fundamental problem to Bitcoin that bothers me most.

It is good to keep in mind that it only takes one small pool to include the censored transactions to thwart the efforts of the tyrants.

Circumvented easily -- just orphan all non-abiding blocks.

I also do not think that every jurisdiction in the world would fall under this type of censorship and oppression as well, which is what would be required for such censorship to be successful.

There are countries that love to project their power onto others around the world (FATCA and so on), and countries that might be willing to do the same (China, ..). What happens you can't predict, but I cant discount any possibility.

Also smaller pools are not less profitable they just have more variance, obviously however you would not want to be in a pool that has under 5 percent of the hashpower depending on the timescale of your mining operation of course.

That's the whole point of the debate. The uneven propagation is influencing orphan races outcomes. While this can be at least partially mitigated by relay networks, the worst-case scenarios is still the same.

If we cannot trust that the majority of the mining power will do what is best for Bitcoin then Bitcoin has already fundamentally failed which I do not think is presently the case. In order to orphan all non-abiding blocks a single entity would need to be able exert control over more then fifty one percent of the mining power, if this happens Bitcoin has already been undermined anyway. I do not think it will be possible to enforce such policy across every jurisdiction in the world, this is however more of a question for geopolitics.

[brg444]

increasing the blocksize does not change this dynamic whatsoever one way or the other.

You did not prove that, and I explained why it does. Hint: cenralization pressures change this dynamic.

We depend on miners to do what is best for Bitcoin, this works because they are incentivized to do good. This is why pools are not approaching fifty one percent any more.

Don't be so naive. You don't know if they are doing good, in fact, most Chinese large farms connected to AntPool, F2Pool and others might be controlled by a single company. What you see is a nice graph on bc.i, nothing more.

In the same sense we will rely on the miners when censorship happens on the pool level, to move their mining power over to a pool that does not censor transactions, I think miners will do so because Bitcoin derives some of its value from its permissionless nature.

No amount of miners' faith can circumvent government regulation. That's a fundamental problem to Bitcoin that bothers me most.

It is good to keep in mind that it only takes one small pool to include the censored transactions to thwart the efforts of the tyrants.

Circumvented easily -- just orphan all non-abiding blocks.

I also do not think that every jurisdiction in the world would fall under this type of censorship and oppression as well, which is what would be required for such censorship to be successful.

There are countries that love to project their power onto others around the world (FATCA and so on), and countries that might be willing to do the same (China, ..). What happens you can't predict, but I cant discount any possibility.

Also smaller pools are not less profitable they just have more variance, obviously however you would not want to be in a pool that has under 5 percent of the hashpower depending on the timescale of your mining operation of course.

That's the whole point of the debate. The uneven propagation is influencing orphan races outcomes. While this can be at least partially mitigated by relay networks, the worst-case scenarios is still the same.

If we cannot trust that the majority of the mining power will do what is best for Bitcoin then Bitcoin has already fundamentally failed which I do not think is presently the case. In order to orphan all non-abiding blocks a single entity would need to be able exert control over more then fifty one percent of the mining power, if this happens Bitcoin has already been undermined anyway.

You don't understand Bitcoin.

It is not about trusting miners but aligning their incentives properly, which you suggest to change. The onus of proof is on you to support your position with factual demonstration that the balance of power is not at risk. You have so far tragically failed at doing so.

[RoadTrain]

If we cannot trust that the majority of the mining power will do what is best for Bitcoin then Bitcoin has already fundamentally failed which I do not think is presently the case. In order to orphan all non-abiding blocks a single entity would need to be able exert control over more then fifty one percent of the mining power, if this happens Bitcoin has already been undermined anyway. I do not think it will be possible to enforce such policy across every jurisdiction in the world, this is however more of a question for geopolitics.

My point still stands: larger blocks increase mining centralization pressures. Truth is, even with a single miner you can trust that it will do what's best for Bitcoin. But it doesn't have to. It's all based on incentives. Mining centralization is hard to prevent, as the past tells us, and even harder to undo. You likely won't notice until the bad happens.