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

[brg444]

70 : 30 Votes for big blocks.

What is Core going to do now? Now that the majority of the miners want bigger blocks.

They should go ahead and tell them to stfu. They don't make the rules and don't get to decide how Bitcoin operates.

The miners do decide on the rules and you must not understand how Bitcoin works.

 

No, the miners only enforce the rules decided on by the nodes.

What is this? Bitcoin kindergarden? Damn you rugrats! Did you learn nothing from your homeworks ??  

Nodes can be faked and are not a good measure of consensus, you have even said this yourself. This is why proof of work is the superior method for deciding on important issues like this.

It doesn't matter if nodes can be faked, as long as the legitimate base of nodes enforce a certain code no change is possible unless they all agree to move forward with the new protocol.

You are thoroughly confused about how Bitcoin operates and it is getting irritating. Suggesting that the miners decide on the code Bitcoin peers should run is utter nonsense. Get your facts straight.

If one would listen to you they'd be lead to believe that we should also move forward with infinite subsidy since it would be in the interest of the miners not to lose the block reward.

[1714255144]

1714255144

[1714255144]

1714255144

[1714255144]

1714255144

[RoadTrain]

It is not an anecdotal fallacy when used to support the claim that increased adoption has a positive effect in terms of increasing the node count. This does not mean that under all circumstances and under increased adoption the node count will be increased because there are other variables and factors at work. I was arguing against brg444 claim or failure to acknowledge that adoption is a positive factor in terms of increasing the count. Surely you can acknowledge this aspect of the dynamics of the Bitcoin node count.

Once again, your claim might turn out to be true in the spherical cows world, but in the real world, it's quite possible that adoption happens with SPV wallets, which do nothing positive. If you want to consider all factors at play, consider that full nodes are a gain for the network, while SPV ones are a drain.

Your argument as I understand it is: "My friend has adopted Bitcoin, started running a full node, therefore adoption is positive for the node count". While I see that may be logically correct, I can't see how it's relevant. That friend can be imaginary, I can't verify that.

I do not understand how you can make this conclusion since you have not made an argument.

I can tell you about my friend that came to Bitcoin, and... I can tell you anecdotes.

I think the truth is more important then relevance.

Truth is important when it's relevant. I can make true statements endlessly, but if it's all irrelevant, why bother?

This is a classic strawman, I have never argued that increasing the blocksize would lead to increased adoption.

I have argued however that we need to increase the blocksize in anticipation of increased adoption and in case there are spikes of adoption possibly due to world events. Furthermore that if the blocksize is not increased in time then this would prevent and possibly cause a decline in adoption, because if the blocks did become consistently full then transactions would be rendered unreliable and much more expensive. This is what I would like to prevent by increasing the blocksize and not allowing the Bitcoin network to become overloaded and congested so to speak.

This is not a strawman, I didn't imply adoption follows blocksizes. If you want, drop the blocksize part altogether.

Another strawman I suppose, this time projecting into the future of what I might say under hypothetical circumstances. If the node count does not increase with massive adoption and combined with a moderate blocksize increase then I will be proven wrong, unlike some other people on this thread, I can admit to being wrong sometimes. However that is not the trend I am expecting, time will tell to see whose theories will be proven correct.

You don't give any conditions under which you can be proven wrong, hence my comment. It's not an argument, just a side note that you can apply that logic indefinitely, unless you give some conditions.

It is ridiculous for you to claim that I have an argument from ignorance/silence when I have extensively explained and argued for why we should increase the blocksize. The article I wrote on the subject certainly is evidence of this.

Well, the perceived absence of counter-arguments doesn't make you more or less wrong. You have stated that "...increased adoption would also lead to an increased node count..." which is you own opinion, as usual. This may or may not happen, and is not an argument. The good thing about arguments is that they can stand by themselves, we don't need to convince you of anything.

The vast majority of the mining power today exists in this way, therefore increasing the difficulty of running a full node does not effect miners because they do not run full nodes, the pools do instead.

Can't you see that? First, you say "The vast majority of the mining power", and then conclude as if it's "All mining power". Is BitFury a pool or a miner? What about those occasional solo miners?

[VeritasSapere]

It is not an anecdotal fallacy when used to support the claim that increased adoption has a positive effect in terms of increasing the node count. This does not mean that under all circumstances and under increased adoption the node count will be increased because there are other variables and factors at work. I was arguing against brg444 claim or failure to acknowledge that adoption is a positive factor in terms of increasing the count. Surely you can acknowledge this aspect of the dynamics of the Bitcoin node count.

Once again, your claim might turn out to be true in the spherical cows world, but in the real world, it's quite possible that adoption happens with SPV wallets, which do nothing positive. If you want to consider all factors at play, consider that full nodes are a gain for the network, while SPV ones are a drain.

I do not consider people that use SPV to be a drain on the network, most people in the developing world for instance will not be able to run full nodes, I would not consider their inclusion which is enabled by SPV a drain on the network. More participants and users of Bitcoin increase its value which in turn increases its security.

Your argument as I understand it is: "My friend has adopted Bitcoin, started running a full node, therefore adoption is positive for the node count". While I see that may be logically correct, I can't see how it's relevant. That friend can be imaginary, I can't verify that.

That is not my argument and it should be obvious to you by now that there is more to it. My example is just that a single example of a greater trend that is reflected not just by my example.

This is a classic strawman, I have never argued that increasing the blocksize would lead to increased adoption.

I have argued however that we need to increase the blocksize in anticipation of increased adoption and in case there are spikes of adoption possibly due to world events. Furthermore that if the blocksize is not increased in time then this would prevent and possibly cause a decline in adoption, because if the blocks did become consistently full then transactions would be rendered unreliable and much more expensive. This is what I would like to prevent by increasing the blocksize and not allowing the Bitcoin network to become overloaded and congested so to speak.

This is not a strawman, I didn't imply adoption follows blocksizes. If you want, drop the blocksize part altogether.

You certianly did imply this, though now that you have changed you position I suppose it does not matter anymore.

What's funny about your 'argument': if we raise blocksizes, see increased adoption

Another strawman I suppose, this time projecting into the future of what I might say under hypothetical circumstances. If the node count does not increase with massive adoption and combined with a moderate blocksize increase then I will be proven wrong, unlike some other people on this thread, I can admit to being wrong sometimes. However that is not the trend I am expecting, time will tell to see whose theories will be proven correct.

You don't give any conditions under which you can be proven wrong, hence my comment. It's not an argument, just a side note that you can apply that logic indefinitely, unless you give some conditions.

If there are no examples at all of people discovering and adopting Bitcoin which leads to them running a full node, if this condition is met or more accurately I suppose if there is no evidence to the contrary then my argument can be proven wrong. It should be obvious however that this is not the case and that increased adoption does lead to more full nodes being run as a result of the increased adoption.

It is ridiculous for you to claim that I have an argument from ignorance/silence when I have extensively explained and argued for why we should increase the blocksize. The article I wrote on the subject certainly is evidence of this.

Well, the perceived absence of counter-arguments doesn't make you more or less wrong. You have stated that "...increased adoption would also lead to an increased node count..." which is you own opinion, as usual. This may or may not happen, and is not an argument. The good thing about arguments is that they can stand by themselves, we don't need to convince you of anything.

My arguments do stand by themselves, I have already demonstrated how it is an argument, which is furthermore based on more then just my opinion.

The vast majority of the mining power today exists in this way, therefore increasing the difficulty of running a full node does not effect miners because they do not run full nodes, the pools do instead.

Can't you see that? First, you say "The vast majority of the mining power", and then conclude as if it's "All mining power". Is BitFury a pool or a miner? What about those occasional solo miners?

I have already explained this to you so I do not know why we are going around in circles in regards to this issue. The only "solo" miners are miners like Bitfury, KNC and 21inc. Surely these extremely large industrial miners do not need to be protected for the cause of decentralization since they are the biggest cause of mining centralization after all. To feasible solo mine it would require a mining operation worth tens of millions of dollars in order to make it viable by overcoming the variance. This is why the vast majority of mining power today is directed towards public pools. Not sure about the internal structure of Bitfury but I would not be surprised if it operates more like a private pool actually. P2P pool variance is also to high and a lot of modern ASICS do not work well with P2P pool either. Either way the vast majority of the mining power today is being directed towards pools, this is why increasing the blocksize does not effect mining centralization. Pool centralization is a different issue which I am not overly concerned about as long as mining remains sufficiently distributed.

[VeritasSapere]

70 : 30 Votes for big blocks.

What is Core going to do now? Now that the majority of the miners want bigger blocks.

They should go ahead and tell them to stfu. They don't make the rules and don't get to decide how Bitcoin operates.

The miners do decide on the rules and you must not understand how Bitcoin works.

 

No, the miners only enforce the rules decided on by the nodes.

What is this? Bitcoin kindergarden? Damn you rugrats! Did you learn nothing from your homeworks ??  

Nodes can be faked and are not a good measure of consensus, you have even said this yourself. This is why proof of work is the superior method for deciding on important issues like this.

It doesn't matter if nodes can be faked, as long as the legitimate base of nodes enforce a certain code no change is possible unless they all agree to move forward with the new protocol.

You are thoroughly confused about how Bitcoin operates and it is getting irritating. Suggesting that the miners decide on the code Bitcoin peers should run is utter nonsense. Get your facts straight.

If one would listen to you they'd be lead to believe that we should also move forward with infinite subsidy since it would be in the interest of the miners not to lose the block reward.

It would not be in the interest of the miners to increase the block reward. Seriously I do not think you understand Bitcoin.

Thinking that we need pure consensus is just a way to ensure your favored outcome, since real consensus among large groups of people is impossible to achieve.

[brg444]

70 : 30 Votes for big blocks.

What is Core going to do now? Now that the majority of the miners want bigger blocks.

They should go ahead and tell them to stfu. They don't make the rules and don't get to decide how Bitcoin operates.

The miners do decide on the rules and you must not understand how Bitcoin works.

 

No, the miners only enforce the rules decided on by the nodes.

What is this? Bitcoin kindergarden? Damn you rugrats! Did you learn nothing from your homeworks ??  

Nodes can be faked and are not a good measure of consensus, you have even said this yourself. This is why proof of work is the superior method for deciding on important issues like this.

It doesn't matter if nodes can be faked, as long as the legitimate base of nodes enforce a certain code no change is possible unless they all agree to move forward with the new protocol.

You are thoroughly confused about how Bitcoin operates and it is getting irritating. Suggesting that the miners decide on the code Bitcoin peers should run is utter nonsense. Get your facts straight.

If one would listen to you they'd be lead to believe that we should also move forward with infinite subsidy since it would be in the interest of the miners not to lose the block reward.

It would not be in the interest of the miners to increase the block reward. Seriously I do not think you understand Bitcoin.

Thinking that we need pure consensus is just a way to ensure your favored outcome, since real consensus among large groups of people is impossible to achieve.

How so?

[VeritasSapere]

bitcoin is not a democracy.

it's a consensus (defined by a 90-95% global threshold)

else status quo.

Bitcoin is form of democracy, it has it build right into the algorithm, Bitcoin will reflect the will of the economic majority.

It only requires 51% of the mining power to fork Bitcoin so repeating that it is a consensus only defined by 90-95% is meaningless. You are ignoring the reality that consensus is often impossible among large groups of people.

A 51% fork is righteously called an attack on the network.

Any change that involves less than a super-majority agreement is to be considered contentious and a subsequent fork is to be considered an altcoin if it results in the existence of two separate networks.

For that reason, Bitcoin is not ruled by the majority and therefore is not a democracy.

Don't confuse consensus and unanimity. No one said changes require 100% support.

Here we go again, back to claiming that the will of the economic majority represents an attack on the network. I do not agree with calling a blockchain fork an altcoin since this is factually incorrect. I suppose however that if Bitcoin did split because of the blocksize debate then you would be in the minority. According to your own logic then the small block version of Bitcoin would then be the altcoin, I do not agree with this but it is an extension of your own logic. The majority of miners now support increasing the blocksize after all, whether you like it or not, this will happen.

[VeritasSapere]

70 : 30 Votes for big blocks.

What is Core going to do now? Now that the majority of the miners want bigger blocks.

They should go ahead and tell them to stfu. They don't make the rules and don't get to decide how Bitcoin operates.

The miners do decide on the rules and you must not understand how Bitcoin works.

 

No, the miners only enforce the rules decided on by the nodes.

What is this? Bitcoin kindergarden? Damn you rugrats! Did you learn nothing from your homeworks ??  

Nodes can be faked and are not a good measure of consensus, you have even said this yourself. This is why proof of work is the superior method for deciding on important issues like this.

It doesn't matter if nodes can be faked, as long as the legitimate base of nodes enforce a certain code no change is possible unless they all agree to move forward with the new protocol.

You are thoroughly confused about how Bitcoin operates and it is getting irritating. Suggesting that the miners decide on the code Bitcoin peers should run is utter nonsense. Get your facts straight.

If one would listen to you they'd be lead to believe that we should also move forward with infinite subsidy since it would be in the interest of the miners not to lose the block reward.

It would not be in the interest of the miners to increase the block reward. Seriously I do not think you understand Bitcoin.

Thinking that we need pure consensus is just a way to ensure your favored outcome, since real consensus among large groups of people is impossible to achieve.

How so?

Because miners are incentivized not to undermine the value proposition of Bitcoin.

[USB-S]

70 : 30 Votes for big blocks.

What is Core going to do now? Now that the majority of the miners want bigger blocks.

They should go ahead and tell them to stfu. They don't make the rules and don't get to decide how Bitcoin operates.

The miners do decide on the rules and you must not understand how Bitcoin works.

 

No, the miners only enforce the rules decided on by the nodes.

What is this? Bitcoin kindergarden? Damn you rugrats! Did you learn nothing from your homeworks ??  

Nodes can be faked and are not a good measure of consensus, you have even said this yourself. This is why proof of work is the superior method for deciding on important issues like this.

It doesn't matter if nodes can be faked, as long as the legitimate base of nodes enforce a certain code no change is possible unless they all agree to move forward with the new protocol.

You are thoroughly confused about how Bitcoin operates and it is getting irritating. Suggesting that the miners decide on the code Bitcoin peers should run is utter nonsense. Get your facts straight.

If one would listen to you they'd be lead to believe that we should also move forward with infinite subsidy since it would be in the interest of the miners not to lose the block reward.

It would not be in the interest of the miners to increase the block reward. Seriously I do not think you understand Bitcoin.

Thinking that we need pure consensus is just a way to ensure your favored outcome, since real consensus among large groups of people is impossible to achieve.

I think the intrest of miners is to increase fees, not block reward. Increasing the block reward would brake bitcoin.

[brg444]

bitcoin is not a democracy.

it's a consensus (defined by a 90-95% global threshold)

else status quo.

Bitcoin is form of democracy, it has it build right into the algorithm, Bitcoin will reflect the will of the economic majority.

It only requires 51% of the mining power to fork Bitcoin so repeating that it is a consensus only defined by 90-95% is meaningless. You are ignoring the reality that consensus is often impossible among large groups of people.

A 51% fork is righteously called an attack on the network.

Any change that involves less than a super-majority agreement is to be considered contentious and a subsequent fork is to be considered an altcoin if it results in the existence of two separate networks.

For that reason, Bitcoin is not ruled by the majority and therefore is not a democracy.

Don't confuse consensus and unanimity. No one said changes require 100% support.

Here we go again, back to claiming that the will of the economic majority represents an attack on the network. I do not agree with calling a blockchain fork an altcoin since this is factually incorrect. I suppose however that if Bitcoin did split because of the blocksize debate then you would be in the minority. According to your own logic then the small block version of Bitcoin would then be the altcoin, I do not agree with this but it is an extension of your own logic. The majority of miners now support increasing the blocksize after all, whether you like it or not, this will happen.

51% of the HASHING POWER is NOT the economic majority. God damn you fail so hard.

The miners don't decide what chain is valid, the nodes & the investors (the real economic majority) do.

Jesus christ you are stupid. It's painfully obvious you're the one that's actually clueless about how the consensus process operates... You can insist into attempting to push us into your reality distortion field but realize that it only makes you all the more delusional.

The current standstill is not my favored outcome but the one of the economic majority as it currently exists. Until every actor in the ecosystem come to consensus on how to move forward then status quo will prevail.

You and your little minority of defectors can fork off, the sooner the better as anytime you open your mouth you are only making a fool of yourself and the ones who know better are merely regarding you as entertainment & comedy.

[VeritasSapere]

bitcoin is not a democracy.

it's a consensus (defined by a 90-95% global threshold)

else status quo.

Bitcoin is form of democracy, it has it build right into the algorithm, Bitcoin will reflect the will of the economic majority.

It only requires 51% of the mining power to fork Bitcoin so repeating that it is a consensus only defined by 90-95% is meaningless. You are ignoring the reality that consensus is often impossible among large groups of people.

A 51% fork is righteously called an attack on the network.

Any change that involves less than a super-majority agreement is to be considered contentious and a subsequent fork is to be considered an altcoin if it results in the existence of two separate networks.

For that reason, Bitcoin is not ruled by the majority and therefore is not a democracy.

Don't confuse consensus and unanimity. No one said changes require 100% support.

Here we go again, back to claiming that the will of the economic majority represents an attack on the network. I do not agree with calling a blockchain fork an altcoin since this is factually incorrect. I suppose however that if Bitcoin did split because of the blocksize debate then you would be in the minority. According to your own logic then the small block version of Bitcoin would then be the altcoin, I do not agree with this but it is an extension of your own logic. The majority of miners now support increasing the blocksize after all, whether you like it or not, this will happen.

51% of the HASHING POWER is NOT the economic majority. God damn you fail so hard.

I never claimed that it was.

The miners don't decide what chain is valid, the nodes & the investors (the real economic majority) do.

Funny how you are now completely neglecting the miners as part of the economic majority, they most certainly are an important part of the economic majority.

The current standstill is not my favored outcome but the one of the economic majority as it currently exists. Until every actor in the ecosystem come to consensus on how to move forward then status quo will prevail.

It seems like you are not seeing the writing on the wall, the economic majority now favors increasing the blocksize. This is why the majority of the miners are now voting to increase the blocksize and most of the important companies and individuals have expressed their support for an increased blocksize as well.

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/who-is-for-and-against-expanding-the-block-size-reasonably-soon.119/

[brg444]

bitcoin is not a democracy.

it's a consensus (defined by a 90-95% global threshold)

else status quo.

Bitcoin is form of democracy, it has it build right into the algorithm, Bitcoin will reflect the will of the economic majority.

It only requires 51% of the mining power to fork Bitcoin so repeating that it is a consensus only defined by 90-95% is meaningless. You are ignoring the reality that consensus is often impossible among large groups of people.

A 51% fork is righteously called an attack on the network.

Any change that involves less than a super-majority agreement is to be considered contentious and a subsequent fork is to be considered an altcoin if it results in the existence of two separate networks.

For that reason, Bitcoin is not ruled by the majority and therefore is not a democracy.

Don't confuse consensus and unanimity. No one said changes require 100% support.

Here we go again, back to claiming that the will of the economic majority represents an attack on the network. I do not agree with calling a blockchain fork an altcoin since this is factually incorrect. I suppose however that if Bitcoin did split because of the blocksize debate then you would be in the minority. According to your own logic then the small block version of Bitcoin would then be the altcoin, I do not agree with this but it is an extension of your own logic. The majority of miners now support increasing the blocksize after all, whether you like it or not, this will happen.

51% of the HASHING POWER is NOT the economic majority. God damn you fail so hard.

I never claimed that it was.

The miners don't decide what chain is valid, the nodes & the investors (the real economic majority) do.

Funny how you are now completely neglecting the miners as part of the economic majority, they most certainly are an important part of the economic majority.

The current standstill is not my favored outcome but the one of the economic majority as it currently exists. Until every actor in the ecosystem come to consensus on how to move forward then status quo will prevail.

It seems like you are not seeing the writing on the wall, the economic majority now favors increasing the blocksize. This is why the majority of the miners are now voting to increase the blocksize and most of the important companies and individuals have expressed their support for an increase as well.

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/who-is-for-and-against-expanding-the-block-size-reasonably-soon.119/

You addressed my argument that a 51% hashing power fork was an attack on the network by saying that I claim " the will of the economic majority represents an attack on the network."

I would presume this mean you consider 51% of the hashing power to represent somehow the "economic majority". If you don't then may I suggest you explain yourself in a more intelligible way because this is not the first occurrence of you denying claims you've previously made and at this point we can only assume you are anything but honest in your arguments.

The miners are certainly part of the economic majority but they are second level actors in that regard. They enforce the rules agreed on by the network peers & the holders. Don't even pretend you have the ability to debate this. It is not up for debate.  It is how Bitcoin operates.

If the economic majority supported a block increase it would've happened already. What is so hard to understand about this?

I don't care that you single out the miners "vote" as somehow significant since the evidence working against BIP101 & BIP100 are overwhelming.

Nodes are not buying it. A majority of Bitcoin developers are not either. An important number of high-net worth individuals (yes in BTC) are vehemently opposed. Clearly the economic majority is opposed to any change until a better proposition comes along. Any time you attempt to argue the opposite you just look stupid.

It's time you get a grip with reality and stop supporting such a helpless cause. I have nothing against you supporting larger blocks but by now you should understand that it is in the best interest of your ideology to shift your focus to better, more productive alternatives.

[VeritasSapere]

bitcoin is not a democracy.

it's a consensus (defined by a 90-95% global threshold)

else status quo.

Bitcoin is form of democracy, it has it build right into the algorithm, Bitcoin will reflect the will of the economic majority.

It only requires 51% of the mining power to fork Bitcoin so repeating that it is a consensus only defined by 90-95% is meaningless. You are ignoring the reality that consensus is often impossible among large groups of people.

A 51% fork is righteously called an attack on the network.

Any change that involves less than a super-majority agreement is to be considered contentious and a subsequent fork is to be considered an altcoin if it results in the existence of two separate networks.

For that reason, Bitcoin is not ruled by the majority and therefore is not a democracy.

Don't confuse consensus and unanimity. No one said changes require 100% support.

Here we go again, back to claiming that the will of the economic majority represents an attack on the network. I do not agree with calling a blockchain fork an altcoin since this is factually incorrect. I suppose however that if Bitcoin did split because of the blocksize debate then you would be in the minority. According to your own logic then the small block version of Bitcoin would then be the altcoin, I do not agree with this but it is an extension of your own logic. The majority of miners now support increasing the blocksize after all, whether you like it or not, this will happen.

51% of the HASHING POWER is NOT the economic majority. God damn you fail so hard.

I never claimed that it was.

The miners don't decide what chain is valid, the nodes & the investors (the real economic majority) do.

Funny how you are now completely neglecting the miners as part of the economic majority, they most certainly are an important part of the economic majority.

The current standstill is not my favored outcome but the one of the economic majority as it currently exists. Until every actor in the ecosystem come to consensus on how to move forward then status quo will prevail.

It seems like you are not seeing the writing on the wall, the economic majority now favors increasing the blocksize. This is why the majority of the miners are now voting to increase the blocksize and most of the important companies and individuals have expressed their support for an increase as well.

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/who-is-for-and-against-expanding-the-block-size-reasonably-soon.119/

You addressed my argument that a 51% hashing power fork was an attack on the network by saying that I claim " the will of the economic majority represents an attack on the network."

I would presume this mean you consider 51% of the hashing power to represent somehow the "economic majority". If you don't then may I suggest you explain yourself in a more intelligible way because this is not the first occurrence of you denying claims you've previously made and at this point we can only assume you are anything but honest in your arguments.

Miners would not fork the network without the support of the economic majority, since they are incentivized to do what is good for Bitcoin. Unless there is a true 50/50 type split which would have to be due to fundamental ideological disagreements. Even in this scenario which I think is unlikely and most likely not the case with this blocksize debate, this is still justified because it would be the best way to resolve disagreements without tyranny of the majority. I found this aspect of Bitcoins design rather appealing actually.

The miners are certainly part of the economic majority but they are second level actors in that regard. They enforce the rules agreed on by the network peers & the holders. Don't even pretend you have the ability to debate this. It is not up for debate. It is how Bitcoin operates.

It is not up for debate? The miners can fork the network and create the longest chain. Individuals as nodes/peers can freely choose what side of the fork to support even if it means ignoring the longest chain in this case, which would lead to the shorter chain to become more valuable and eventually therefore gain more hashing power becoming the more dominant chain again. Checks and balances you could say and divisions of power.

The miners however are incentivized to support the economic majority because that is where the value lies and how the incentives are aligned. However it is the miners that initiate or trigger this process by "voting" with their hashing power. This is why BIP101 is triggered by the miners and BIP100 should be as well. Proof of work is perfectly suited to this role within Bitcoin, as it has always intended to be.

If the economic majority supported a block increase it would've happened already. What is so hard to understand about this?

This is not the case because it takes time for all of the parties involved to speak to each other and reach consensus. The miners also need time because they need to be very sure that they are doing the right thing and whether the economic majority is truly on their side which is not always easy to determine. Furthermore the BIP101 fork can not be triggered before January and BIP100 has not been implemented yet.

Nodes are not buying it. A majority of Bitcoin developers are not either. An important number of high-net worth individuals (yes in BTC) are vehemently opposed. Clearly the economic majority is opposed to any change until a better proposition comes along. Any time you attempt to argue the opposite you just look stupid.

Evidence points towards the contrary with the mining majority wanting to increase the blocksize and the number of important companies and influential people that support increasing the blocksize.

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/who-is-for-and-against-expanding-the-block-size-reasonably-soon.119/

It's time you get a grip with reality and stop supporting such a helpless cause. I have nothing against you supporting larger blocks but by now you should understand that it is in the best interest of your ideology to shift your focus to better, more productive alternatives.

I support bigger blocks and the only implementation that increases the blocksize is BIP101, so I support BIP101 until BIP100 is implemented, which I favor or until something better comes along. I do not see how this is not productive if my goal is to increase the throughput of the Bitcoin blockchain directly. Supporting these implementations certainly is productive towards increasing the throughput of the Bitcoin blockchain directly while maintaining decentralization and financial freedom.

[brg444]

boring

Oh well.. what can I say...

Prepare yourself for more heartbreaks and more disappointment?

[uwichii]

Hey. XT did light the fire under people to get something decided. We need bigger blocks, and the Core developers only care about selling themselves to Blockstream.

So give XT the respect it deserves

[hdbuck]

Hey. XT did light the fire under people to get something decided. We need bigger blocks, and the Core developers only care about selling themselves to Blockstream.

So give XT the respect it deserves

Ohai fork off? Noob?

[valiz]

Yes, you noobs and dreamers fork off already 

If your so-called "economic majority" agrees with you noobs, they will promptly jump to your alternative and you win. But no, you just cling on with your hijacking attempts and annoy people further with your ramblings. 

VeritasSphere, you are no different from a scientific socialism professor. 

[RoadTrain]

It is not an anecdotal fallacy when used to support the claim that increased adoption has a positive effect in terms of increasing the node count. This does not mean that under all circumstances and under increased adoption the node count will be increased because there are other variables and factors at work. I was arguing against brg444 claim or failure to acknowledge that adoption is a positive factor in terms of increasing the count. Surely you can acknowledge this aspect of the dynamics of the Bitcoin node count.

Once again, your claim might turn out to be true in the spherical cows world, but in the real world, it's quite possible that adoption happens with SPV wallets, which do nothing positive. If you want to consider all factors at play, consider that full nodes are a gain for the network, while SPV ones are a drain.

I do not consider people that use SPV to be a drain on the network, most people in the developing world for instance will not be able to run full nodes, I would not consider their inclusion which is enabled by SPV a drain on the network. More participants and users of Bitcoin increase its value which in turn increases its security.

No one cares about what you consider, SPV nodes are a drain simply because they are using physical resources provided by full nodes without giving back. They consume connection slots, I/O time. The very fact that people use SPV wallets instead of full nodes, even when they have resources, decreases Bitcoin security. By the way, did you turn "SPV nodes are a drain" into "people that use SPV are a drain" on purpose? Because it changes what I said.

Your argument as I understand it is: "My friend has adopted Bitcoin, started running a full node, therefore adoption is positive for the node count". While I see that may be logically correct, I can't see how it's relevant. That friend can be imaginary, I can't verify that.

That is not my argument and it should be obvious to you by now that there is more to it. My example is just that a single example of a greater trend that is reflected not just by my example.

That's funny, because the actual trend is the reverse of what you suggest

Another strawman I suppose, this time projecting into the future of what I might say under hypothetical circumstances. If the node count does not increase with massive adoption and combined with a moderate blocksize increase then I will be proven wrong, unlike some other people on this thread, I can admit to being wrong sometimes. However that is not the trend I am expecting, time will tell to see whose theories will be proven correct.

You don't give any conditions under which you can be proven wrong, hence my comment. It's not an argument, just a side note that you can apply that logic indefinitely, unless you give some conditions.

If there are no examples at all of people discovering and adopting Bitcoin which leads to them running a full node, if this condition is met or more accurately I suppose if there is no evidence to the contrary then my argument can be proven wrong. It should be obvious however that this is not the case and that increased adoption does lead to more full nodes being run as a result of the increased adoption.

This kind of condition is incompatible with your argument. Read what you wrote: "If the node count does not increase with massive adoption and combined with a moderate blocksize increase then I will be proven wrong". There might be examples of people adopting Bitcoin and running a full node, but the node count might still decrease due to earlier adopters switching SPV and stuff. Instead, you should've given conditions on these vague words: "massive adoption", "moderate blocksize increase", and a timeframe in which to compare node counts.

It is ridiculous for you to claim that I have an argument from ignorance/silence when I have extensively explained and argued for why we should increase the blocksize. The article I wrote on the subject certainly is evidence of this.

Well, the perceived absence of counter-arguments doesn't make you more or less wrong. You have stated that "...increased adoption would also lead to an increased node count..." which is you own opinion, as usual. This may or may not happen, and is not an argument. The good thing about arguments is that they can stand by themselves, we don't need to convince you of anything.

My arguments do stand by themselves, I have already demonstrated how it is an argument, which is furthermore based on more then just my opinion.

What you have demonstrated is what you expect, which is clearly your opinion, which can be invalidated in the future. "I do expect to see a trend reversal with increased adoption as we are already partially seeing today." -- this may or may not happen.

The vast majority of the mining power today exists in this way, therefore increasing the difficulty of running a full node does not effect miners because they do not run full nodes, the pools do instead.

Can't you see that? First, you say "The vast majority of the mining power", and then conclude as if it's "All mining power". Is BitFury a pool or a miner? What about those occasional solo miners?

I have already explained this to you so I do not know why we are going around in circles in regards to this issue. The only "solo" miners are miners like Bitfury, KNC and 21inc. Surely these extremely large industrial miners do not need to be protected for the cause of decentralization since they are the biggest cause of mining centralization after all. To feasible solo mine it would require a mining operation worth tens of millions of dollars in order to make it viable by overcoming the variance. This is why the vast majority of mining power today is directed towards public pools. Not sure about the internal structure of Bitfury but I would not be surprised if it operates more like a private pool actually. P2P pool variance is also to high and a lot of modern ASICS do not work well with P2P pool either. Either way the vast majority of the mining power today is being directed towards pools, this is why increasing the blocksize does not effect mining centralization. Pool centralization is a different issue which I am not overly concerned about as long as mining remains sufficiently distributed.

We are running in circles because you conveniently ignore details when they don't fit your argument. Ignore solo miners ("they are not effected" -- they are effected, they just have enough money to pay for it), ignore p2pool ("variance is too high"). I can't go on like that. I guess I'll break the circle once again.

[muyuu]

Euphoric teenagers keep coming back where "censorship" happens after their grand stances and announced departures. Who would have thought?

https://archive.is/hZXHP

[Zarathustra]

Not even BIP100 achieves 75% and they have been stable at around 60% for months already.

Everything is going swimmingly. Hearndresen ostracised, price up, XTards butthurt. 

Small blockers butthurt. A 29 percent minority.

[Zarathustra]

Bitcoin Unlimited: Articles of Confederation

Article 1: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System for Planet Earth

This is too much, I can't  

Epic laughs over there.  It's like a Swiss vault filled with comedy gold!

I can't tell if Bitcoin Unlimited is real or just a (Poe-etic) way to troll the XTurds into splitting into even smaller groups of malcontents.

Either way, it is glorious to watch Frap.doc, a former Monopolist Maximalist Supremacist, spec'ing an altcoin.    

Frap.doc said:

theZerg said: ↑

    I thought that BU was additionally going to vote for 100 & 101. Is that also out of the baseline?

I still don't get what this was meant to entail?

Is it just an announcement that "we support the concept of 100 and 101" and nothing else in terms of code execution in BU? Or is the addition of bigger blocks to BU somehow dependent on the more restrictive rules of those 2 implementations?

Perhaps the term "flag" is confusing me. This usually means an "option" for an argument in Linux terms.

As an aside, I guarantee you core dev and idiots like brg444 et al are watching this discussion and are are already formulating ways to attack and lie about how harmful BU will be.

These armchair engineers don't even know what they want; their only design requirement is excluding Evil Blockstream!

Core don't know what they want. That's the reason why Core forked and you got competition and choice eventually.
I know the consensus collectivist dreamers hate competition and choice, but it's reality now.