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

[VeritasSapere]

I feel this whole blocksize drama is just what it is: drama. It aint gonna happen.
If they fork, the old/original version will come out as the one with the most value (as in longest valid chain, and as opposed to spammed/centralized/etc chain).

Probably there will be some adjustment time considering difficulty and the hashrate being divised, but Bitcoin 'original' can only triumph in the end.
Plus we get to loose all them ph0rking n00bs with their beloved companies, government and frappucinos.. ergo much much value

I am not convinced by your argument. It would be more convincing if you tried to rebuttal the arguments that have already been presented.

The problem is you write too much. Maybe you'd like to present a cogent and concise argumentation of why BIP101 is necessary?

I already have, and you have so far failed to respond to my counter argument of your rebuttal.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1164464.msg12270744#msg12270744

This dillema in Bitcoin can not be simplified, you can not come up with one liners that adequatly explain all of the relavant factors involved with this issue. However I can present you with an extremely simplfied argument since you did request it, If you would like to see this in context I suggest you read the whole article I have written on the subject.

To put it simply, if we do not increase the block size it will be more expensive and less people will be able to use it, that is to transact on the main chain directly.

However if we increase the block size then it will be less expensive and more people will be able to use it. Even if full nodes will only be able to be hosted on powerful computers with high bandwidth connections. Considering that these would be the most likely outcomes with increased adoption. I argue that increasing the blocksize is the most decentralized option considering the alternative.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1164464.0

[1715423513]

1715423513

[1715423513]

1715423513

[1715423513]

1715423513

[1715423513]

1715423513

[1715423513]

1715423513

[bambou]

I feel this whole blocksize drama is just what it is: drama. It aint gonna happen.
If they fork, the old/original version will come out as the one with the most value (as in longest valid chain, and as opposed to spammed/centralized/etc chain).

Probably there will be some adjustment time considering difficulty and the hashrate being divised, but Bitcoin 'original' can only triumph in the end.
Plus we get to loose all them ph0rking n00bs with their beloved companies, government and frappucinos.. ergo much much value

I am not convinced by your argument. It would be more convincing if you tried to rebuttal the arguments that have already been presented.

The problem is you write too much. Maybe you'd like to present a cogent and concise argumentation of why BIP101 is necessary?

I already have, and you have so far failed to respond to my counter argument of your rebuttal.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1164464.msg12270744#msg12270744

However even though this dillema in Bitcoin can not be over simplified, You can not come up with one liners that adequatly explain all of the relavant factors involved with this issue. However I can present you with an extremely simplfied argument since you did request it, If you would like to see this in context I suggest you read the whole article I have written on this subject.

To put it simply, if we do not increase the block size it will be more expensive and less people will be able to use it, that is to transact on the main chain directly.

However if we increase the block size then it will be less expensive and more people will be able to use it. Even if full nodes will only be able to be hosted on powerful computers with high bandwidth connections. Considering that these would be the most likely outcomes with increased adoption. I can argue that increasing the blocksize is the most decentralized option considering the alternative.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1164464.0

You are right, just go ahead, I fully agree with you. The bold part convinced me so much. Go infinite ZOMG Blockchain!

But don't mind if I (and probably a lot more people than you think, and with a lot more bitcoins) wait on the side line original one and only truly decentralized longest valid blockchain...

[brg444]

I feel this whole blocksize drama is just what it is: drama. It aint gonna happen.
If they fork, the old/original version will come out as the one with the most value (as in longest valid chain, and as opposed to spammed/centralized/etc chain).

Probably there will be some adjustment time considering difficulty and the hashrate being divised, but Bitcoin 'original' can only triumph in the end.
Plus we get to loose all them ph0rking n00bs with their beloved companies, government and frappucinos.. ergo much much value

I am not convinced by your argument. It would be more convincing if you tried to rebuttal the arguments that have already been presented.

The problem is you write too much. Maybe you'd like to present a cogent and concise argumentation of why BIP101 is necessary?

I already have, and you have so far failed to respond to my counter argument of your rebuttal.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1164464.msg12270744#msg12270744

This dillema in Bitcoin can not be simplified, you can not come up with one liners that adequatly explain all of the relavant factors involved with this issue. However I can present you with an extremely simplfied argument since you did request it, If you would like to see this in context I suggest you read the whole article I have written on the subject.

To put it simply, if we do not increase the block size it will be more expensive and less people will be able to use it, that is to transact on the main chain directly.

However if we increase the block size then it will be less expensive and more people will be able to use it. Even if full nodes will only be able to be hosted on powerful computers with high bandwidth connections. Considering that these would be the most likely outcomes with increased adoption. I argue that increasing the blocksize is the most decentralized option considering the alternative.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1164464.0

How about this: I don't particularly care about the amount of people using it. I'm more focused on the capital it attracts.

Let me stand proud and say I would forsake 1,000,000 users for every billionaire we attract. How do you like that  

Let me spin you one-liners for fun :

if we do not increase the block size it will be cheaper for more nodes to access governance of the network

if we increase the block size then it will be more expensive and less people will be privileged with this access

but who cares about the nodes, right  

[VeritasSapere]

I feel this whole blocksize drama is just what it is: drama. It aint gonna happen.
If they fork, the old/original version will come out as the one with the most value (as in longest valid chain, and as opposed to spammed/centralized/etc chain).

Probably there will be some adjustment time considering difficulty and the hashrate being divised, but Bitcoin 'original' can only triumph in the end.
Plus we get to loose all them ph0rking n00bs with their beloved companies, government and frappucinos.. ergo much much value

I am not convinced by your argument. It would be more convincing if you tried to rebuttal the arguments that have already been presented.

The problem is you write too much. Maybe you'd like to present a cogent and concise argumentation of why BIP101 is necessary?

I already have, and you have so far failed to respond to my counter argument of your rebuttal.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1164464.msg12270744#msg12270744

This dillema in Bitcoin can not be simplified, you can not come up with one liners that adequatly explain all of the relavant factors involved with this issue. However I can present you with an extremely simplfied argument since you did request it, If you would like to see this in context I suggest you read the whole article I have written on the subject.

To put it simply, if we do not increase the block size it will be more expensive and less people will be able to use it, that is to transact on the main chain directly.

However if we increase the block size then it will be less expensive and more people will be able to use it. Even if full nodes will only be able to be hosted on powerful computers with high bandwidth connections. Considering that these would be the most likely outcomes with increased adoption. I argue that increasing the blocksize is the most decentralized option considering the alternative.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1164464.0

How about this: I don't particularly care about the amount of people using it. I'm more focused on the capital it attracts.

Let me stand proud and say I would forsake 1,000,000 users for every billionaire we attract. How do you like that  

Let me spin you one-liners for fun :

if we do not increase the block size it will be cheaper for more nodes to access governance of the network

if we increase the block size then it will be more expensive and less people will be privileged with this access

but who cares about the nodes, right  

This is really oversimplifying the issue. Nodes are important, but I do hope that you understand that it needs to be a trade off. Since what would be the point of running a full node if we do not even use the blockchain directly ourselves since we would need to rely on third parties since transacting on the main Bitcoin blockchain would become prohibitively expensive. How many people do you think would run these nodes for the banks, payment processors and like you say a few billionaires? I would argue that the opposite is true, if more people are using Bitcoin directly the more likely it will be that we will have more nodes. Arbitrarily restricting the amount of people that can use Bitcoin directly would therefore not lead to an increase in the amount of nodes. Furthermore in terms of access to governance nodes are not as important in terms of governance compared to the miners, and miners do not even run full nodes, that is why miners would not be effected by this change whatsoever.

[yayayo]

more than 14% of all nodes isnt a failure isnt it? they also push the development and force the devs to make a decision that we need.

good work gavin and mike!

This number includes XT, NotXT and fake nodes.

Please spread your misinformation elsewhere.

I'd also like to remind you to use the altcoin section when discussing altcoins.

ya.ya.yo!

[Carlton Banks]

Nodes are important, but I do hope that you understand that it needs to be a trade off. Since what would be the point of running a full node if we do not even use the blockchain directly ourselves since we would need to rely on third parties since transacting on the main Bitcoin blockchain would become prohibitively expensive. How many people do you think would run these nodes for the banks, payment processors and like you say a few billionaires? I would argue that the opposite is true, if more people are using Bitcoin directly the more likely it will be that we will have more nodes. Arbitrarily restricting the amount of people that can use Bitcoin directly would therefore not lead to an increase in the amount of nodes. Furthermore in terms of access to governance nodes are not as important in terms of governance compared to the miners, and miners do not even run full nodes, that is why miners would not be effected by this change whatsoever.

BIP101 disincentives full nodes also.

How does increasing numbers of people using the blockchain directly not also disincentivise full nodes? (all under the most aggressive block increase proposal still standing that is BIP101, no less)

Miners do run full nodes, they couldn't mine transactions without access to the full blockchain history. Where you got that opposite idea from I do not know.

[VeritasSapere]

Nodes are important, but I do hope that you understand that it needs to be a trade off. Since what would be the point of running a full node if we do not even use the blockchain directly ourselves since we would need to rely on third parties since transacting on the main Bitcoin blockchain would become prohibitively expensive. How many people do you think would run these nodes for the banks, payment processors and like you say a few billionaires? I would argue that the opposite is true, if more people are using Bitcoin directly the more likely it will be that we will have more nodes. Arbitrarily restricting the amount of people that can use Bitcoin directly would therefore not lead to an increase in the amount of nodes. Furthermore in terms of access to governance nodes are not as important in terms of governance compared to the miners, and miners do not even run full nodes, that is why miners would not be effected by this change whatsoever.

BIP101 disincentives full nodes also.

How does increasing numbers of people using the blockchain directly not also disincentivise full nodes? (all under the most aggressive block increase proposal still standing that is BIP101, no less)

Miners do run full nodes, they couldn't mine transactions without access to the full blockchain history. Where you got that opposite idea from I do not know.

If there are more people using Bitcoin there will be more people running full nodes, I accept that it will be more difficult to run a full node however this does need to be a trade off, since the alternative would be much worse in terms of decentralization.

I am actually a miner myself, so I do know how mining works. Miners do not run full nodes, the pools do. All that is sent to the miners is the hash or the cryptographic problem that must be solved. This can be done across a 56K dial up connection, even if we had 8gig blocks, It would make no difference for the miners whatsoever. Since the pools can be setup in data centers with high bandwidth connections and favorable block propagation. Miners are free to point their mining power to whatever pool they want. The pools in this way function similarly to a Representative democracy. Since a free market of pools can exist and the miners would never be incentivized to allow one pool to grow so big that it would endanger the value proposition of Bitcoin. This is why I think that increasing the block size would not lead to increased mining centralization.

I have written about this in more detail here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1164464.0

[brg444]

Nodes are important, but I do hope that you understand that it needs to be a trade off. Since what would be the point of running a full node if we do not even use the blockchain directly ourselves since we would need to rely on third parties since transacting on the main Bitcoin blockchain would become prohibitively expensive. How many people do you think would run these nodes for the banks, payment processors and like you say a few billionaires? I would argue that the opposite is true, if more people are using Bitcoin directly the more likely it will be that we will have more nodes. Arbitrarily restricting the amount of people that can use Bitcoin directly would therefore not lead to an increase in the amount of nodes. Furthermore in terms of access to governance nodes are not as important in terms of governance compared to the miners, and miners do not even run full nodes, that is why miners would not be effected by this change whatsoever.

BIP101 disincentives full nodes also.

How does increasing numbers of people using the blockchain directly not also disincentivise full nodes? (all under the most aggressive block increase proposal still standing that is BIP101, no less)

Miners do run full nodes, they couldn't mine transactions without access to the full blockchain history. Where you got that opposite idea from I do not know.

If there are more people using Bitcoin there will be more people running full nodes, I accept that it will be more difficult to run a full node however this does need to be a trade off, since the alternative would be much worse in terms of decentralization.

I am actually a miner myself, so I do know how mining works. Miners do not run full nodes, the pools do. All that is sent to the miners is the hash or the cryptographic problem that must be solved. This can be done across a 56K dial up connection, even if we had 8gig blocks, It would make no difference for the miners whatsoever. Since the pools can be setup in data centers with high bandwidth connections and favorable block propagation. Miners are free to point their mining power to whatever pool they want. The pools in this way function similarly to a Representative democracy. Since a free market of pools can exist and the miners would never be incentivized to allow one pool to grow so big that it would endanger the value proposition of Bitcoin. This is why I think that increasing the block size would not lead to increased mining centralization.

I have written about this in more detail here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1164464.0

History shows this simply isn't true.

[Carlton Banks]

Nodes are important, but I do hope that you understand that it needs to be a trade off. Since what would be the point of running a full node if we do not even use the blockchain directly ourselves since we would need to rely on third parties since transacting on the main Bitcoin blockchain would become prohibitively expensive. How many people do you think would run these nodes for the banks, payment processors and like you say a few billionaires? I would argue that the opposite is true, if more people are using Bitcoin directly the more likely it will be that we will have more nodes. Arbitrarily restricting the amount of people that can use Bitcoin directly would therefore not lead to an increase in the amount of nodes. Furthermore in terms of access to governance nodes are not as important in terms of governance compared to the miners, and miners do not even run full nodes, that is why miners would not be effected by this change whatsoever.

BIP101 disincentives full nodes also.

How does increasing numbers of people using the blockchain directly not also disincentivise full nodes? (all under the most aggressive block increase proposal still standing that is BIP101, no less)

Miners do run full nodes, they couldn't mine transactions without access to the full blockchain history. Where you got that opposite idea from I do not know.

If there are more people using Bitcoin there will be more people running full nodes, I accept that it will be more difficult to run a full node however this does need to be a trade off, since the alternative would be much worse in terms of decentralization.

It's actually a direct contradiction. Gavin Andresen, the architect of BIP101, doesn't share your vision at all. He fully admits that BIP101 doesn't solve the scaling problem, and that off-chain transactions are the only way to let everyone worldwide use the network.

I am actually a miner myself, so I do know how mining works. Miners do not run full nodes, the pools do.

And what are the pools using the node for, spending money on groceries? They're mining with them. Also, you're ignoring the peer to peer miners and the solo miners.

And furthermore, the pools are currently in a bad state; several have shutdown since the boom years, and the network is now mostly solo miners (BitFury, KNC and at least one Chinese pool are solo operators, not open access). The only significant individualised pool mining is taking place in China, it's been deteriorating for some years now.

As a miner, how are you unaware of these basic prevailing conditions in your industry, especially seeing as they render your elucidations on the mining market null and void? Centralisation is already the trend, BIP101 is doing nothing to reverse that.

[VeritasSapere]

Nodes are important, but I do hope that you understand that it needs to be a trade off. Since what would be the point of running a full node if we do not even use the blockchain directly ourselves since we would need to rely on third parties since transacting on the main Bitcoin blockchain would become prohibitively expensive. How many people do you think would run these nodes for the banks, payment processors and like you say a few billionaires? I would argue that the opposite is true, if more people are using Bitcoin directly the more likely it will be that we will have more nodes. Arbitrarily restricting the amount of people that can use Bitcoin directly would therefore not lead to an increase in the amount of nodes. Furthermore in terms of access to governance nodes are not as important in terms of governance compared to the miners, and miners do not even run full nodes, that is why miners would not be effected by this change whatsoever.

BIP101 disincentives full nodes also.

How does increasing numbers of people using the blockchain directly not also disincentivise full nodes? (all under the most aggressive block increase proposal still standing that is BIP101, no less)

Miners do run full nodes, they couldn't mine transactions without access to the full blockchain history. Where you got that opposite idea from I do not know.

If there are more people using Bitcoin there will be more people running full nodes, I accept that it will be more difficult to run a full node however this does need to be a trade off, since the alternative would be much worse in terms of decentralization.

It's actually a direct contradiction. Gavin Andresen, the architect of BIP101, doesn't share your vision at all. He fully admits that BIP101 doesn't solve the scaling problem, and that off-chain transactions are the only way to let everyone worldwide use the network.

I am actually a miner myself, so I do know how mining works. Miners do not run full nodes, the pools do.

And what are the pools using the node for, spending money on groceries? They're mining with them. Also, you're ignoring the peer to peer miners and the solo miners.

And furthermore, the pools are currently in a bad state; several have shutdown since the boom years, and the network is now mostly solo miners (BitFury, KNC and at least one Chinese pool are solo operators, not open access). The only significant individualised pool mining is taking place in China, it's been deteriorating for some years now.

As a miner, how are you unaware of these basic prevailing conditions in your industry, especially seeing as they render your elucidations on the mining market null and void? Centralisation is already the trend, BIP101 is doing nothing to reverse that.

I agree that eventually off chain solutions need to be used in order to scale Bitcoin to a massive scale, however I just do not think that the cut of point for the transaction limit should be one megabyte. It would be better to keep the network as inclusive and inexpensive as possible from the users perspective since it is more important to increase adoption first, this would help Bitcoins survival into the future. I do think however that there should be a block size limit and a fee market should develop in the future, but I do not think that time is now, since the block reward is still high and adoption is still relatively low. Furthermore we need higher transaction volume in order to pay the miners far into the future as well. It can be argued that having a higher volume of transactions at a lower cost will be more profitable for mining then having lower volume at a higher cost.

To think that miners should solo mine and that this will aid decentralization is pretty much a myth, since in order to solo mine it would require a operation that would cost millions of dollars to setup. Solo mining is just not feasible anymore except for the extremely large industrial miners. P2P mining still only represents a very small proportion of miners and therefore the variance is also still to high, and there can sometimes be problems setting up the latest asics for P2P mining as well.

Actually the pool distribution has become more decentralized over the last few months. And more then 70% of mining power is inside of pools with open access. I can agree that BIP101 does nothing about reversing the trend in mining centralization, however it also does nothing to worsen the situation either. Just leaving the block size where it is now does not effect mining centralization either. I personally do not think that mining centralization is even a problem, people worry to much about mining. It is a self balancing system, no matter what happens, mining will balance itself out because of how incentive and the free markets work. I do not think that there is anything wrong with how mining functions today. Yes it is far more centralized then it was in the beginning, but this should have been expected because of economies of scale, but to think that we can go back to how it used to be is unrealistic. I expect mining to become more decentralized over time as more people come into the space and compete with each other. As a miner I am more concerned about having access to the latest equipment, however that is a completely different issue which is not related to the block size debate.

https://blockchain.info/pools?show_adv=no

[Carlton Banks]

Nodes are important, but I do hope that you understand that it needs to be a trade off. Since what would be the point of running a full node if we do not even use the blockchain directly ourselves since we would need to rely on third parties since transacting on the main Bitcoin blockchain would become prohibitively expensive. How many people do you think would run these nodes for the banks, payment processors and like you say a few billionaires? I would argue that the opposite is true, if more people are using Bitcoin directly the more likely it will be that we will have more nodes. Arbitrarily restricting the amount of people that can use Bitcoin directly would therefore not lead to an increase in the amount of nodes. Furthermore in terms of access to governance nodes are not as important in terms of governance compared to the miners, and miners do not even run full nodes, that is why miners would not be effected by this change whatsoever.

BIP101 disincentives full nodes also.

How does increasing numbers of people using the blockchain directly not also disincentivise full nodes? (all under the most aggressive block increase proposal still standing that is BIP101, no less)

Miners do run full nodes, they couldn't mine transactions without access to the full blockchain history. Where you got that opposite idea from I do not know.

If there are more people using Bitcoin there will be more people running full nodes, I accept that it will be more difficult to run a full node however this does need to be a trade off, since the alternative would be much worse in terms of decentralization.

It's actually a direct contradiction. Gavin Andresen, the architect of BIP101, doesn't share your vision at all. He fully admits that BIP101 doesn't solve the scaling problem, and that off-chain transactions are the only way to let everyone worldwide use the network.

I am actually a miner myself, so I do know how mining works. Miners do not run full nodes, the pools do.

And what are the pools using the node for, spending money on groceries? They're mining with them. Also, you're ignoring the peer to peer miners and the solo miners.

And furthermore, the pools are currently in a bad state; several have shutdown since the boom years, and the network is now mostly solo miners (BitFury, KNC and at least one Chinese pool are solo operators, not open access). The only significant individualised pool mining is taking place in China, it's been deteriorating for some years now.

As a miner, how are you unaware of these basic prevailing conditions in your industry, especially seeing as they render your elucidations on the mining market null and void? Centralisation is already the trend, BIP101 is doing nothing to reverse that.

I agree that eventually off chain solutions need to be used in order to scale Bitcoin to a massive scale, however I just do not think that the cut of point for the transaction limit should be one megabyte.

no-one credible is saying that, how many times...

To think that miners should solo mine and that this will aid decentralization is pretty much a myth, since in order to solo mine it would require a operation that would cost millions of dollars to setup.

More stuff I didn't say.  Is this the way to conduct an argument, pretending you're arguing with someone else about different questions, then you can just say whatever you like?

Actually the pool distribution has become more decentralized over the last few months. And more then 70% of mining power is inside of pools with open access.

I can agree that BIP101 does nothing about reversing the trend in mining centralization, however it also does nothing to worsen the situation either. Just leaving the block size where it is now does not effect mining centralization either. I personally do not think that mining centralization is even a problem, people worry to much about mining. It is a self balancing system, no matter what happens, mining will balance itself out because of how incentive and the free markets work. I do not think that there is anything wrong with how mining functions today. Yes it is far more centralized then it was in the beginning, but this should have been expected because of economies of scale, but to think that we can go back to how it used to be is unrealistic. I expect mining to become more decentralized over time as more people come into the space and compete with each other. As a miner I am more concerned about having access to the latest equipment, however that is a completely different issue which does not relate to the block size at all.

https://blockchain.info/pools?show_adv=no

I cant tell whether you're dishonest or just really confused. You're trying to say that mining is now more decentralised than the early days, yet also more centralised too? And how does increasing the blocksize limit beyond projected trends for the netowrk resources not encourage further decentralisation?  

[VeritasSapere]

no-one credible is saying that, how many times...

Before you say that I was using a straw man argument, I was not. I did not say that you think we should not increase the block size. I know that you support a dynamic limit, and as soon as it is implemented and a mechanism for a fork has been put in place I would most likely support that as well instead of BIP101. At that point we will most likely be on the same side of the fork again.

More stuff I didn't say.  Is this the way to conduct an argument, pretending you're arguing with someone else about different questions, then you can just say whatever you like?

Again I did not claim that you said this, I just wanted to point out that solo miners need to be miners at an industrial scale in order to feasibly solo mine.

I cant tell whether you're dishonest or just really confused. You're trying to say that mining is now more decentralised than the early days, yet also more centralised too? And how does increasing the blocksize limit beyond projected trends for the netowrk resources not encourage further decentralisation?

To be clear, compared to several years ago mining is far more centralised today, however compared to a several months ago, mining has actually become more decentralised. There has been somewhat of a trend reversal so to speak.

I never said that we should increase the blocksize limit beyond projected trends in terms of network resources.

I suppose that I am often arguing from the perspective of being against not increasing the block size because I see that as being the biggest threat to Bitcoin. I am sorry if I sometimes come across like I presume that is your position, that is not my intention and I know that is not what you believe. It seems like we are in agreement that the block size should be increased. I only support BIP101 because it is the only real alternative that exists now that I can adopt now, it is also a catalyst for change, you can call me a political realist if you want, I even consider it a choice between the lesser of two evils. As soon as a third alternative comes along that you would most likely support as well if i where to guess, I will be right there with you supporting the cause and helping to keep Bitcoin free and decentralized, which is in part why I became a miner in the first place.

[hdbuck]

plz forkers just get it done with already. go to whatever forked chain suits you.

[kelsey]

plz forkers just get it done with already. go to whatever forked chain suits you.

ok cool, that be litecoin 

so much less drama 

[favdesu]

looks like chinese pools joined team BiP100. at least they're reasonable, a bit surprising. good luck with your XT altcoin Gavin

[uxgpf]

How about this: I don't particularly care about the amount of people using it. I'm more focused on the capital it attracts.

Let me stand proud and say I would forsake 1,000,000 users for every billionaire we attract. How do you like that  

Let me spin you one-liners for fun :

if we do not increase the block size it will be cheaper for more nodes to access governance of the network

if we increase the block size then it will be more expensive and less people will be privileged with this access

but who cares about the nodes, right  

And who would be interested in running nodes for a handful of billionaires?

This node runner for one would disappear from the network. (As nodes are non profit so would probably most others)

[Carlton Banks]

no-one credible is saying that, how many times...

Before you say that I was using a straw man argument, I was not. I did not say that you think we should not increase the block size. I know that you support a dynamic limit, and as soon as it is implemented and a mechanism for a fork has been put in place I would most likely support that as well instead of BIP101. At that point we will most likely be on the same side of the fork again.

I would welcome that outcome.

I cant tell whether you're dishonest or just really confused. You're trying to say that mining is now more decentralised than the early days, yet also more centralised too? And how does increasing the blocksize limit beyond projected trends for the netowrk resources not encourage further decentralisation?

To be clear, compared to several years ago mining is far more centralised today, however compared to a several months ago, mining has actually become more decentralised. There has been somewhat of a trend reversal so to speak.

I never said that we should increase the blocksize limit beyond projected trends in terms of network resources.

Unfortunately, that's what the BIP101 schedule confers, and so you are advocating (indirectly) for outgrowing network resources. Only industrial scale miners can cope with above trend changes, hence the centralising effect.

I suppose that I am often arguing from the perspective of being against not increasing the block size because I see that as being the biggest threat to Bitcoin. I am sorry if I sometimes come across like I presume that is your position, that is not my intention and I know that is not what you believe. It seems like we are in agreement that the block size should be increased. I only support BIP101 because it is the only real alternative that exists now that I can adopt now, it is also a catalyst for change, you can call me a political realist if you want, I even consider it a choice between the lesser of two evils. As soon as a third alternative comes along that you would most likely support as well if i where to guess, I will be right there with you supporting the cause and helping to keep Bitcoin free and decentralized, which is in part why I became a miner in the first place.

I find your statements here very encouraging.

It does make some sense to support solutions that actually exist, and also to consider BIP101 the lesser of two evils when contrasted with 1MB 4EVER. I don't see it that way, but it's not so egregious.

But what you're saying to qualify that is well formed too. A choice between two bad options isn't much of a choice at all. I am confident we will have a far wider range of options on the table to choose from.

[alani123]

looks like chinese pools joined team BiP100. at least they're reasonable, a bit surprising. good luck with your XT altcoin Gavin

Not Just China, and also not all of China.

Bitfury, KNCMiner, 21 Inc, CKPool and BitClub are all currently mining blocks in support of BIP100. I don't think any of those are based in China.

As of the Chinese pools
BW and Antpool are mining blocks in support of 8Mb

F2Pool and BTCChina mine BIP100

[knight22]

looks like chinese pools joined team BiP100. at least they're reasonable, a bit surprising. good luck with your XT altcoin Gavin

They are not reasonable, it is an immature power grab that can cripple competition in the mining space.

[VeritasSapere]

Unfortunately, that's what the BIP101 schedule confers, and so you are advocating (indirectly) for outgrowing network resources. Only industrial scale miners can cope with above trend changes, hence the centralising effect.

One correction here is that this is true for the pools, not necessary the miners, since the miners are not effected by an increased block size, Miners and pool operators are today mostly separate entities. However you are correct that BIP101 might increase the blocksize limit beyond projected trends in terms of network resources, from the perspective of the pools and other full node operators. Which would indeed decrease node count and therefore would be bad for decentralization.

More users does lead to more full nodes, however in order to support more users we need to increase the block size which does make it more difficult to run full nodes and would therefore decrease node count. This does need to be a balancing act, and your criticisms of BIP101 are valid that it might not achieve the best balance between these opposing pressures.

A choice between two bad options isn't much of a choice at all. I am confident we will have a far wider range of options on the table to choose from.

I agree, and I am also confident that we will have a wider range of options available to us in the near future as well.