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

[madjules007]

Good, why? I haven't seen this adequately explained. Considering we are not even reaching capacity at 1MB, 8MB is completely arbitrary. 8GB is beyond arbitrary -- it's simply out of touch with reality. The only possible justification is Moore's Law, and as I pointed out above, this is an illogical and unscientific basis to go by.

no one can see in the future. this means we cant know how much blocksize we will need. but we can make educated guesses about what might be a good max. and if we are wrong with that maximum lets just have a little trust in miners which dont want to let bitcoin fail to choose some reasonable value.

yes 8mb is arbitary. but why is this a problem? it is not possible to calculate the future (at least for now and not from inside our universe). what transactions are put in a block and which arent is a decision made by people who have the incentive to keep this system running.

And why do we need to determine the max block size 20 years out? Indeed, it's impossible to make logical estimations about future transaction volume..... so why invent an arbitrary number and just go with it?

Block capacity is connected to transaction volume growth. So we have real world data to estimate our capacity needs for the foreseeable future. And those simply don't line up with 8MB or 8GB. Maybe in the future they will.... maybe. We can cross that bridge when we come to it. In the meantime, the emphasis should be on consensus. A conservative approach that scales to real-world needs rather than fantasized ones based on Moore's Law is much preferable in that regard.

Six years in, we have not hit capacity. Why are we planning on 8000x capacity 20 years from now? Just because? Incredible lack of foresight, and quite audacious to assume that we have every possible technical problem that may arise figured out, today.

[1715480128]

1715480128

[1715480128]

1715480128

[1715480128]

1715480128

[1715480128]

1715480128

[1715480128]

1715480128

[brg444]

But of course it has to do with blocksize.

Blocksize is a check on economies of scale so as to level the playing ground. It is absolutely necessary while Bitcoin is still relatively small. Without it the entities with the most resources will make use of the technology available to run out of the market any smaller players.

that is only true if the entity with the most resources has more than 51%.
otherwise i expect smaller players to team up in such cases and ignore blocks as soon as a big player start to behave badly.

it is in their best interest to do that.

we can see this with: most home miners go to the biggest pool like flies going to the brightest light. but - until now - whenever a pool got to much hashing power the community realized that it is bad and hashing power got more distributed again.

You don't seem to grasp the impact of this. In this outcome there is no "smaller players".

There is an unlimited amount of capital which can and WILL be leveraged to install hashing facilities that can and will accept big blocks. The competition in that scenario is not between large miners and smaller ones, it's between large miners only.

What you get is a handful of giant corporations running mega mining operations coupled with node datacenters that essentially make smaller players irrelevant.

Home mining is destined to be a thing of the past. Even the most dedicated hobbyist will be run out of the game. You can't imagine a situation where they will stay relevant and therefore by looking for their own best interest will put a check on large scale operations. That's just not how it works.

[onemorexmr]

And why do we need to determine the max block size 20 years out? Indeed, it's impossible to make logical estimations about future transaction volume..... so why invent an arbitrary number and just go with it?

because you see now that it is nearly impossible to change bitcoin protocol. it gets harder and harder with more users. i am pretty sure if satoshi has forseen this discussions he would never introduced the temporary 1mb spam limit in the first place.

Block capacity is connected to transaction volume growth. So we have real world data to estimate our capacity needs for the foreseeable future. And those simply don't line up with 8MB or 8GB. Maybe in the future they will.... maybe. We can cross that bridge when we come to it. In the meantime, the emphasis should be on consensus. A conservative approach that scales to real-world needs rather than fantasized ones based on Moore's Law is much preferable in that regard.

Six years in, we have not hit capacity. Why are we planning on 8000x capacity 20 years from now? Just because? Incredible lack of foresight, and quite audacious to assume that we have every possible technical problem that may arise figured out, today.

we cant estimate transaction volume growth... one big war, one good media report, one country accepts bitcoin as main currency: one billion people trying to buy bitcoin in one week? no way to calculate something like with an algorithm.

[onemorexmr]

Home mining is destined to be a thing of the past. Even the most dedicated hobbyist will be run out of the game. You can't imagine a situation where they will stay relevant and therefore by looking for their own best interest will put a check on large scale operations. That's just not how it works.

i dont think any big mining cooperation can compete with millions of home-miners which mine using a by-product because they need the heat. because they can mine for free

[brg444]

Home mining is destined to be a thing of the past. Even the most dedicated hobbyist will be run out of the game. You can't imagine a situation where they will stay relevant and therefore by looking for their own best interest will put a check on large scale operations. That's just not how it works.

i dont think any big mining cooperation can compete with millions of home-miners which mine using a by-product because they need the heat. because they can mine for free

That's very cool.

Unfortunately these do not exist yet. Until they do we will need a limit on the block size.

[madjules007]

And why do we need to determine the max block size 20 years out? Indeed, it's impossible to make logical estimations about future transaction volume..... so why invent an arbitrary number and just go with it?

because you see now that it is nearly impossible to change bitcoin protocol. it gets harder and harder with more users. i am pretty sure if satoshi has forseen this discussions he would never introduced the temporary 1mb spam limit in the first place.

Nearly impossible? How do you figure? This is just irrational fear mongering. All future problems will not be solved with this hard fork. If you believe that a future hard fork will kill bitcoin because consensus is impossible, you may as well leave bitcoin while you can.

And regarding Satoshi's opinion:

Applying this patch will make you incompatible with other Bitcoin clients.

+1 theymos.  Don't use this patch, it'll make you incompatible with the network, to your own detriment.

We can phase in a change later if we get closer to needing it.

Irrational fear mongering.

Block capacity is connected to transaction volume growth. So we have real world data to estimate our capacity needs for the foreseeable future. And those simply don't line up with 8MB or 8GB. Maybe in the future they will.... maybe. We can cross that bridge when we come to it. In the meantime, the emphasis should be on consensus. A conservative approach that scales to real-world needs rather than fantasized ones based on Moore's Law is much preferable in that regard.

Six years in, we have not hit capacity. Why are we planning on 8000x capacity 20 years from now? Just because? Incredible lack of foresight, and quite audacious to assume that we have every possible technical problem that may arise figured out, today.

we cant estimate transaction volume growth... one big war, one good media report, one country accepts bitcoin as main currency: one billion people trying to buy bitcoin in one week? no way to calculate something like with an algorithm.

Yeah. Cross that bridge when we come to it. This insane idea that "the whole world is going to adopt bitcoin tomorrow" is absurd. There is no logical reason why we can't scale based on actual transaction growth. Again, this is just fear mongering with no technical foresight.

[onemorexmr]

And why do we need to determine the max block size 20 years out? Indeed, it's impossible to make logical estimations about future transaction volume..... so why invent an arbitrary number and just go with it?

because you see now that it is nearly impossible to change bitcoin protocol. it gets harder and harder with more users. i am pretty sure if satoshi has forseen this discussions he would never introduced the temporary 1mb spam limit in the first place.

Nearly impossible? How do you figure? This is just irrational fear mongering. All future problems will not be solved with this hard fork. If you believe that a future hard fork will kill bitcoin because consensus is impossible, you may as well leave bitcoin while you can.

And regarding Satoshi's opinion:

Applying this patch will make you incompatible with other Bitcoin clients.

+1 theymos.  Don't use this patch, it'll make you incompatible with the network, to your own detriment.

We can phase in a change later if we get closer to needing it.

Irrational fear mongering.

Block capacity is connected to transaction volume growth. So we have real world data to estimate our capacity needs for the foreseeable future. And those simply don't line up with 8MB or 8GB. Maybe in the future they will.... maybe. We can cross that bridge when we come to it. In the meantime, the emphasis should be on consensus. A conservative approach that scales to real-world needs rather than fantasized ones based on Moore's Law is much preferable in that regard.

Six years in, we have not hit capacity. Why are we planning on 8000x capacity 20 years from now? Just because? Incredible lack of foresight, and quite audacious to assume that we have every possible technical problem that may arise figured out, today.

we cant estimate transaction volume growth... one big war, one good media report, one country accepts bitcoin as main currency: one billion people trying to buy bitcoin in one week? no way to calculate something like with an algorithm.

Yeah. Cross that bridge when we come to it. This insane idea that "the whole world is going to adopt bitcoin tomorrow" is absurd. There is no logical reason why we can't scale based on actual transaction growth. Again, this is just fear mongering with no technical foresight.

the blocksize debate is going on for years now. many people think it shouldnt change even if transaction backlog starts to grow. and now you are telling me that its just fear mongering when i say its nearly impossible to change the bitcoin protocol? c'mon...

i didnt say that the whole world will adopt bitcoin tomorrow. i think its just shortsighted to think an algorithm would work.

and "cross the bridge when we come to it": well you want to change a p2p system without warning its users beforehand? a protocol change needs time... if the utxo is 1gb its too late

[brg444]

the blocksize debate is going on for years now. many people think it shouldnt change even if transaction backlog starts to grow. and now you are telling me that its just fear mongering when i say its nearly impossible to change the bitcoin protocol? c'mon...

i didnt say that the whole world will adopt bitcoin tomorrow. i think its just shortsighted to think an algorithm would work.

and "cross the bridge when we come to it": well you want to change a p2p system without warning its users beforehand? a protocol change needs time... if the utxo is 1gb its too late

The more important point here is that to prepare Bitcoin to handle the transactions needed in the event of adoption on the scale you propose we'd pretty much have to lift the limit entirely.

I think I have demonstrated in the previous post why that is not quite an option.

[onemorexmr]

the blocksize debate is going on for years now. many people think it shouldnt change even if transaction backlog starts to grow. and now you are telling me that its just fear mongering when i say its nearly impossible to change the bitcoin protocol? c'mon...

i didnt say that the whole world will adopt bitcoin tomorrow. i think its just shortsighted to think an algorithm would work.

and "cross the bridge when we come to it": well you want to change a p2p system without warning its users beforehand? a protocol change needs time... if the utxo is 1gb its too late

The more important point here is that to prepare Bitcoin to handle the transactions needed in the event of adoption on the scale you propose we'd pretty much have to lift the limit entirely.

I think I have demonstrated in the previous post why that is not quite an option.

you have demonstrated that bitcoin is doomed to get centralized even with 1mb blocks.
we already see the first signs - even with a huge blockreward.

i told you the only solution i see (home mining): which has nothing to do with blocksize.

[madjules007]

the blocksize debate is going on for years now. many people think it shouldnt change even if transaction backlog starts to grow. and now you are telling me that its just fear mongering when i say its nearly impossible to change the bitcoin protocol? c'mon...

i didnt say that the whole world will adopt bitcoin tomorrow. i think its just shortsighted to think an algorithm would work.

and "cross the bridge when we come to it": well you want to change a p2p system without warning its users beforehand? a protocol change needs time... if the utxo is 1gb its too late

I don't see any technical reasoning behind this. You're just using an invented sense of urgency to say "WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING NOW!!11!11!!! BIP 101!!!!111!"

If you think an algorithm is short-sighted, why do you support one that increases the limit based on Moore's Law?

Can you address my point that capacity needs are linked to growth in transaction volume? After six years, we haven't come close to hitting capacity at 1MB on average. So your "transaction backlog" point is moot. If you agree that we don't have a reliable way to predict future transaction volume, why would we pick an arbitrary limit with no basis in reality, without any discussion of the technical implications for the protocol/network -- hardware, bandwidth, network security/bloat.....?

There is ample time -- just take a look at BIP 100. The fact that people have discussed this in theory for several years before it ever became a realistic issue is totally irrelevant. Within two months of the XT client release, we now have several BIPs that aim to increase block size, and miners are now voting to make their preferences clear among the current proposals.

Fear mongering.....

[onemorexmr]

the blocksize debate is going on for years now. many people think it shouldnt change even if transaction backlog starts to grow. and now you are telling me that its just fear mongering when i say its nearly impossible to change the bitcoin protocol? c'mon...

i didnt say that the whole world will adopt bitcoin tomorrow. i think its just shortsighted to think an algorithm would work.

and "cross the bridge when we come to it": well you want to change a p2p system without warning its users beforehand? a protocol change needs time... if the utxo is 1gb its too late

I don't see any technical reasoning behind this. You're just using an invented sense of urgency to say "WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING NOW!!11!11!!! BIP 101!!!!111!"

If you think an algorithm is short-sighted, why do you support one that increases the limit based on Moore's Law?

Can you address my point that capacity needs are linked to growth in transaction volume? After six years, we haven't come close to hitting capacity at 1MB on average. So your "transaction backlog" point is moot. If you agree that we don't have a reliable way to predict future transaction volume, why would we pick an arbitrary limit with no basis in reality, without any discussion of the technical implications for the protocol/network -- hardware, bandwidth, network security/bloat.....?

There is ample time -- just take a look at BIP 100. The fact that people have discussed this in theory for several years before it ever became a realistic issue is totally irrelevant. Within two months of the XT client release, we now have several BIPs that aim to increase block size, and miners are now voting to make their preferences clear among the current proposals.

Fear mongering.....

rofl - stop screaming.. you sound childish.

Can you address my point that capacity needs are linked to growth in transaction volume?

i'd love to see a way how to archive that?

as long as there isnt a way i prefer a solution which tries to set it to the max and let miners decide how much they really want to put into a block.

[brg444]

the blocksize debate is going on for years now. many people think it shouldnt change even if transaction backlog starts to grow. and now you are telling me that its just fear mongering when i say its nearly impossible to change the bitcoin protocol? c'mon...

i didnt say that the whole world will adopt bitcoin tomorrow. i think its just shortsighted to think an algorithm would work.

and "cross the bridge when we come to it": well you want to change a p2p system without warning its users beforehand? a protocol change needs time... if the utxo is 1gb its too late

The more important point here is that to prepare Bitcoin to handle the transactions needed in the event of adoption on the scale you propose we'd pretty much have to lift the limit entirely.

I think I have demonstrated in the previous post why that is not quite an option.

you have demonstrated that bitcoin is doomed to get centralized even with 1mb blocks.
we already see the first signs - even with a huge blockreward.

i told you the only solution i see (home mining): which has nothing to do with blocksize.

Mining centralization is somewhat of a mixed bag. While it will happen given the inherent economies of scale the most important thing is that we have a strong and diversified network of nodes who can put a check on these miners. That's essentially what they're for.

Without a blocksize you pretty much leave the nodes to the mercy of miners.

[onemorexmr]

Without a blocksize you pretty much leave the nodes to the mercy of miners.

can you elaborate on that?
i guess you mean bandwith/storage costs for users?

satoshis vision was that most users will use spv clients. anybody who wants more security can get a root-server / bigger vps and host a node+spv-server and use a spv-client at home.

or did i misunderstood you?

[madjules007]

the blocksize debate is going on for years now. many people think it shouldnt change even if transaction backlog starts to grow. and now you are telling me that its just fear mongering when i say its nearly impossible to change the bitcoin protocol? c'mon...

i didnt say that the whole world will adopt bitcoin tomorrow. i think its just shortsighted to think an algorithm would work.

and "cross the bridge when we come to it": well you want to change a p2p system without warning its users beforehand? a protocol change needs time... if the utxo is 1gb its too late

I don't see any technical reasoning behind this. You're just using an invented sense of urgency to say "WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING NOW!!11!11!!! BIP 101!!!!111!"

If you think an algorithm is short-sighted, why do you support one that increases the limit based on Moore's Law?

Can you address my point that capacity needs are linked to growth in transaction volume? After six years, we haven't come close to hitting capacity at 1MB on average. So your "transaction backlog" point is moot. If you agree that we don't have a reliable way to predict future transaction volume, why would we pick an arbitrary limit with no basis in reality, without any discussion of the technical implications for the protocol/network -- hardware, bandwidth, network security/bloat.....?

There is ample time -- just take a look at BIP 100. The fact that people have discussed this in theory for several years before it ever became a realistic issue is totally irrelevant. Within two months of the XT client release, we now have several BIPs that aim to increase block size, and miners are now voting to make their preferences clear among the current proposals.

Fear mongering.....

rofl - stop screaming.. you sound childish.

Can you address my point that capacity needs are linked to growth in transaction volume?

i'd love to see a way how to archive that?

as long as there isnt a way i prefer a solution which tries to set it to the max and let miners decide how much they really want to put into a block.

How to achieve that? Start by offering an explanation for why we should use anything else but observed transaction volume to determine any need to increase block size. Sorry, but "what if x causes massive adoption immediately" isn't good enough. As Satoshi himself stated, we can raise the block size limit as needed, when needed.

Seriously? You haven't addressed anything that I've said and you keep repeating yourself that we need to do "this or that" without any technical explanation or logic. And I am the one acting childish?

Great, I understand what you want because you keep repeating it. Can you explain why we should be persuaded to your point of view? Or this is just based on feeling? Serious question.

I support putting the decision regarding when to increase limits in the hands of the miners, because consensus is paramount. That's one reason I support BIP 100.

[onemorexmr]

Seriously? You haven't addressed anything that I've said and you keep repeating yourself that we need to do "this or that" without any technical explanation or logic. And I am the one acting childish?

Great, I understand what you want because you keep repeating it. Can you explain why we should be persuaded to your point of you? Or this is just based on feeling? Serious question.

I support putting the decision regarding when to increase limits in the hands of the miners, because consensus is paramount. That's one reason I support BIP 100.

it seems BIP100 will win. its not bad: 200% inc or decr very three months is ok with me.
i didnt answer your points in my last posts because you dont seem to read what i wrote.

i never said we need to do anything.
all i said is we should leave that decision to the miners and that i think we need bigger blocks and that an algorithm in my honest opinion cant work.

but i cant stress enough (and i feel trolled because you now write that you want to leave that decision to miners too) that i think its the decision of miners.

well anyway my english really sucks... so i guess we just have a serious misunderstaning here..

[brg444]

Without a blocksize you pretty much leave the nodes to the mercy of miners.

can you elaborate on that?
i guess you mean bandwith/storage costs for users?

satoshis vision was that most users will use spv clients. anybody who wants more security can get a root-server / bigger vps and host a node+spv-server and use a spv-client at home.

or did i misunderstood you?

I don't care about Satoshi's vision to be quite honest. I am very, very tired to hear these arguments to authority.

This is not about every user needing to run a node but making sure that they can if they wish to.

By removing the block size or increasing it too rapidly we risk losing increasing the barriers to entry so much that only datacenters of huge corporations will care about running nodes. Again, if that was Satoshi's vision, I disagree because it has clear costs for decentralization.

[onemorexmr]

Without a blocksize you pretty much leave the nodes to the mercy of miners.

can you elaborate on that?
i guess you mean bandwith/storage costs for users?

satoshis vision was that most users will use spv clients. anybody who wants more security can get a root-server / bigger vps and host a node+spv-server and use a spv-client at home.

or did i misunderstood you?

I don't care about Satoshi's vision to be quite honest. I am very, very tired to hear these arguments to authority.

This is not about every user needing to run a node but making sure that they can if they wish to.

By removing the block size or increasing it too rapidly we risk losing increasing the barriers to entry so much that only datacenters of huge corporations will care about running nodes. Again, if that was Satoshi's vision, I disagree because it has clear costs for decentralization.

ok right; i dont like authority also but i do respect the vision of satoshi because this vision was the reason why i joined - if i didnt share his vision i wouldnt be here.

but i think at standard home lines bitcoin is a bad idea. it even puts a burden on the network with just 8 possible connections. its a little bit parasitic: its nice that it works now.

a root server is not that expensive. if you want to have a little bit more security i dont see a problem to spend 50€ (thats what i pay atm for a rootserver which could handle WAY bigger blocks as we have now) for a fullnode.

[brg444]

Without a blocksize you pretty much leave the nodes to the mercy of miners.

can you elaborate on that?
i guess you mean bandwith/storage costs for users?

satoshis vision was that most users will use spv clients. anybody who wants more security can get a root-server / bigger vps and host a node+spv-server and use a spv-client at home.

or did i misunderstood you?

I don't care about Satoshi's vision to be quite honest. I am very, very tired to hear these arguments to authority.

This is not about every user needing to run a node but making sure that they can if they wish to.

By removing the block size or increasing it too rapidly we risk losing increasing the barriers to entry so much that only datacenters of huge corporations will care about running nodes. Again, if that was Satoshi's vision, I disagree because it has clear costs for decentralization.

ok right; i dont like authority also but i do respect the vision of satoshi because this vision was the reason why i joined - if i didnt share his vision i wouldnt be here.

but i think at standard home lines bitcoin is a bad idea. it even puts a burden on the network with just 8 possible connections. its a little bit parasitic: its nice that it works now.

a root server is not that expensive. if you want to have a little bit more security i dont see a problem to spend 50€ (thats what i pay atm for a rootserver which could handle WAY bigger blocks as we have now) for a fullnode.

I'm not sure what you mean by root server? A VPN/hosted server?

I'm sorry but while that might be useful but it doesn't help with decentralization

[onemorexmr]

Without a blocksize you pretty much leave the nodes to the mercy of miners.

can you elaborate on that?
i guess you mean bandwith/storage costs for users?

satoshis vision was that most users will use spv clients. anybody who wants more security can get a root-server / bigger vps and host a node+spv-server and use a spv-client at home.

or did i misunderstood you?

I don't care about Satoshi's vision to be quite honest. I am very, very tired to hear these arguments to authority.

This is not about every user needing to run a node but making sure that they can if they wish to.

By removing the block size or increasing it too rapidly we risk losing increasing the barriers to entry so much that only datacenters of huge corporations will care about running nodes. Again, if that was Satoshi's vision, I disagree because it has clear costs for decentralization.

ok right; i dont like authority also but i do respect the vision of satoshi because this vision was the reason why i joined - if i didnt share his vision i wouldnt be here.

but i think at standard home lines bitcoin is a bad idea. it even puts a burden on the network with just 8 possible connections. its a little bit parasitic: its nice that it works now.

a root server is not that expensive. if you want to have a little bit more security i dont see a problem to spend 50€ (thats what i pay atm for a rootserver which could handle WAY bigger blocks as we have now) for a fullnode.

I'm not sure what you mean by root server? A VPN/hosted server?

I'm sorry but while that might be useful it doesn't help with decentralization

yes a hosted server.

nodes are not that important. they just relay blocks and transactions and provide connectivity. i dont see a huge impact if there arent that much.

anyhow.. its late not... have to go to sleep...

[brg444]

Without a blocksize you pretty much leave the nodes to the mercy of miners.

can you elaborate on that?
i guess you mean bandwith/storage costs for users?

satoshis vision was that most users will use spv clients. anybody who wants more security can get a root-server / bigger vps and host a node+spv-server and use a spv-client at home.

or did i misunderstood you?

I don't care about Satoshi's vision to be quite honest. I am very, very tired to hear these arguments to authority.

This is not about every user needing to run a node but making sure that they can if they wish to.

By removing the block size or increasing it too rapidly we risk losing increasing the barriers to entry so much that only datacenters of huge corporations will care about running nodes. Again, if that was Satoshi's vision, I disagree because it has clear costs for decentralization.

ok right; i dont like authority also but i do respect the vision of satoshi because this vision was the reason why i joined - if i didnt share his vision i wouldnt be here.

but i think at standard home lines bitcoin is a bad idea. it even puts a burden on the network with just 8 possible connections. its a little bit parasitic: its nice that it works now.

a root server is not that expensive. if you want to have a little bit more security i dont see a problem to spend 50€ (thats what i pay atm for a rootserver which could handle WAY bigger blocks as we have now) for a fullnode.

I'm not sure what you mean by root server? A VPN/hosted server?

I'm sorry but while that might be useful it doesn't help with decentralization

yes a hosted server.

nodes are not that important. they just relay blocks and transactions and provide connectivity. i dont see a huge impact if there arent that much.

anyhow.. its late not... have to go to sleep...

 

Come on now... if you really believe that might as well use Paypal..

So you'd be alright if Google, Microsoft, hell the NSA ran the few nodes behind the Bitcoin network?