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

[Melbustus]

There's a giant misinterpretation going on here. "bigblockism" is not pro-statist. If any similar generalization is true, it's that small-blockism is anti-freemarket. Lift the cap, and miners will respond to free market dynamics and set soft-caps that make sense given the market demand for blockspace; maybe that'd still be around 1mb, maybe not. But intentionally leaving the cap in place amounts to deliberate economic engineering; aka, central planning.

How would the market be free if users would not be able to run a bitcoin client by themselves?
Trusting *yet again* some third institutionalized party a la AWS?

I think what you're getting at is that bitcoin loses its key anti-censorship property if users can't cheaply get credible blockchain-state information. I think that's the property that must be retained. I do NOT think that that's necessarily synonymous with being able to always run a fully-validating node on trivial hardware.

Monetary sovereignty comes at a cost.

If you're suggesting that bitcoin transactions must necessarily be high-fee vs traditional centralized institutions, I think what you're missing is that much of the cost of the traditional financial system is due to regulatory compliance. Bitcoin cuts through that existing infrastructure, so I don't think the blanket statement "Monetary sovereignty comes at a cost" is any sort of core axiom here.

Your signature says it all btw, nice try.

Well, when a pro-bitcoin, pro-decentralization, pro-"hyberbitcoinization", anti-central-banking thread, with a very wide ranging discussion, that you've participated in for *years*, gets locked after some perfectly in-context discussion of XT, one can get a little disgusted at overly dogmatic thinking.

[1714275500]

1714275500

[1714275500]

1714275500

[1714275500]

1714275500

[brg444]

Do you guys think bigblockism is related to the increased number of mainstream statists in the community?

I think the overlap is large.

https://archive.is/UE8qf

There's a giant misinterpretation going on here. "bigblockism" is not pro-statist. If any similar generalization is true, it's that small-blockism is anti-freemarket. Lift the cap, and miners will respond to free market dynamics and set soft-caps that make sense given the market demand for blockspace; maybe that'd still be around 1mb, maybe not. But intentionally leaving the cap in place amounts to deliberate economic engineering; aka, central planning.

How many times does it need to be said that "the miners" don't exist as one entity hence the concept of "soft-caps" is useless and quite a distraction.

Bitcoin is deliberate economic engineering.

The 21,000,000 cap is deliberate economic engineering.

Block interval time is deliberate economic engineering.

I hope you realize this argument holds little value when considering the reality of how the network operates and how it was designed.

[brg444]

Do you guys think bigblockism is related to the increased number of mainstream statists in the community?

I think the overlap is large.

https://archive.is/UE8qf

There's a giant misinterpretation going on here. "bigblockism" is not pro-statist. If any similar generalization is true, it's that small-blockism is anti-freemarket. Lift the cap, and miners will respond to free market dynamics and set soft-caps that make sense given the market demand for blockspace; maybe that'd still be around 1mb, maybe not. But intentionally leaving the cap in place amounts to deliberate economic engineering; aka, central planning.

How would the market be free if users would not be able to run a bitcoin client by themselves?
Trusting *yet again* some third institutionalized party a la AWS?

Monetary sovereignty comes at a cost.

Your signature says it all btw, nice try.

Just because the miners decide on the blocksize it does not follow that people will not be able to run full nodes. Miners will choose what they think is best for Bitcoin, if they think it is important that more people can run full nodes, they will make the blocksize smaller or keep it at its present size. The miners are the best group of people to make this decision because they are incentivized to do what is best for Bitcoin, whatever that might mean at the time.

Melbustus is correct in saying that having the blocksize decided by the Core development team is anti-freemarket and the equivalent of economic engineering or centralized planning. Especially when compared to consensus through proof of work and or other more distributed decision making processes.

Miners are profit driven animals. It is quite foolish to assume that they always act in the network's best interest. The SPV mining act should work as a rather strong argument again this premise. Moreover this does not address the fact that Bitcoin must work even in adversarial environments where market actors may start acting irrationally.

It's rather hilarious that both of you propose that the current state of affairs is akin to "centralized planning". What you propose is the exact definition of central planning: a presumption that one group (miners) can determine the needs of every market actors (nodes) and act accordingly.

Basically you'd rather trade governance through code dictated by the network peers by central planning through the miners. This will fail.

[Melbustus]

Do you guys think bigblockism is related to the increased number of mainstream statists in the community?

I think the overlap is large.

https://archive.is/UE8qf

There's a giant misinterpretation going on here. "bigblockism" is not pro-statist. If any similar generalization is true, it's that small-blockism is anti-freemarket. Lift the cap, and miners will respond to free market dynamics and set soft-caps that make sense given the market demand for blockspace; maybe that'd still be around 1mb, maybe not. But intentionally leaving the cap in place amounts to deliberate economic engineering; aka, central planning.

How many times does it need to be said that "the miners" don't exist as one entity hence the concept of "soft-caps" is useless and quite a distraction.

This sort of argument boils down to an assumption that miners are not net economically-rational. If you think that, then you must think that bitcoin can *never* work. Miners being net-econo-rational actually *IS* probably a core axiom that must be accepted for Bitcoin to be viable. So arguments that reject that idea are worthless.

Bitcoin is deliberate economic engineering.

The 21,000,000 cap is deliberate economic engineering.

Block interval time is deliberate economic engineering.

Ok, you're getting pedantic today, so yes, of course, key properties of bitcoin are its fixed supply and censorship-resistance. That's what I signed up for. I didn't sign for deliberately breaking free-market properties where we can easily have them.

I hope you realize this argument holds little value when considering the reality of how the network operates and how it was designed.

It sounds like you don't realize how the network was designed: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=68655.msg11625671#msg11625671

[Carlton Banks]

at least I do not resort to ad hominem attacks and appeals to authority like many of the small blockists on this forum do.

In which case, make a square out of the circle above.

I have never said that we should increase the blocksize because Satoshi said so, that would indeed be a flawed argument. I have already made my arguments independently from the founders vision, it just happens that I do agree with this original vision and the small blockists do not. I only pointed this out as a response to the claim that not increasing the blocksize is more inline with the original vision of Bitcoin. The argument can be made however that Bitcoin should follow this original vision, I have not made this argument however.

Can I ask you to elaborate on this?

And here's an underhand tactic you and others happily resort to: constant repetition of things that just aren't true.

Please tell me specifically where I am wrong, in terms of the facts. Since I thought that our disagreement stems from a fundamental ideological disagreement, not one based on a flawed understanding of physical reality.

Ok, you're specifically wrong in the reply you made immediately below: (straight after...)

Show me the evidence: no-one has insulted anyone on the basis of anything personal, but they have insulted their ideas.

Why do I even need to prove this? I only said that I do not resort to ad hominem, which is not the same as saying that no one does, which would be a ridiculous claim to make anyway, certainly not one that I ever made.

You claim you've been "insulted and attacked on a continuous basis", but the evidence for that simply doesn't exist. As I said, your beliefs and ideas have been ridiculed, but only those that relate specifically to this debate. Not ad hominem.

[hdbuck]

...
It sounds like you don't realize how the network was designed: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=68655.msg11625671#msg11625671

appeal to authority. again and again.

[Peter R]

...
This sort of argument boils down to an assumption that miners are not net economically-rational. If you think that, then you must think that bitcoin can *never* work. Miners being net-econo-rational actually *IS* probably a core axiom that must be accepted for Bitcoin to be viable. So arguments that reject that idea are worthless.
...

Wow, this sort of blew my mind.  Can we prove this somehow?  And if we did prove this, would it not logically follow that top-down planning à la Core Dev (e.g., using the block size as a policy tool rather than allowing it to emerge naturally) is at best redundant and at worst damaging?

[hdbuck]

lol guess who's back.

[Peter R]

lol guess who's back.

Haha uncanny resemblance.  Now I want a jacket like that .  

[brg444]

This sort of argument boils down to an assumption that miners are not net economically-rational. If you think that, then you must think that bitcoin can *never* work. Miners being net-econo-rational actually *IS* probably a core axiom that must be accepted for Bitcoin to be viable. So arguments that reject that idea are worthless.

That comment in itself is pretty worthless. You perpetuate the illusion that "the miners" exist. Miners are individual. If you don't believe that some can be led to act irrationally, no matter if it is substainable or not, then you're a fool, plain & simple.

Ok, you're getting pedantic today, so yes, of course, key properties of bitcoin are its fixed supply and censorship-resistance. That's what I signed up for. I didn't sign for deliberately breaking free-market properties where we can easily have them.

You fail to address the argument. Following your logic the supply should be left to the free market, who apparently knows best.

It sounds like you don't realize how the network was designed: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=68655.msg11625671#msg11625671

So you ultimately fail to address any of my arguments then conclude with a poor appeal to authority...

Next!

[brg444]

...
This sort of argument boils down to an assumption that miners are not net economically-rational. If you think that, then you must think that bitcoin can *never* work. Miners being net-econo-rational actually *IS* probably a core axiom that must be accepted for Bitcoin to be viable. So arguments that reject that idea are worthless.
...

Wow, this sort of blew my mind.  Can we prove this somehow?  And if we did prove this, would it not logically follow that top-down planning à la Core Dev (e.g., using the block size as a policy tool rather than allowing it to emerge naturally) is at best redundant and at worst damaging?

Yes we can prove this is not true by simply demonstrating that characterization of miners as a group is pure socialist drivel.

[muyuu]

Bigblockism is certainly statist, the overlap is pretty big. But it's not complete, some people are bigblockists and I believe they are not statists. They are a minority in their camp though.

Coffee-in-the-chainers are people who give priority to cheap fees over centralisation concerns or any grand ideals, by and large. There are exceptions.

[Carlton Banks]

...
This sort of argument boils down to an assumption that miners are not net economically-rational. If you think that, then you must think that bitcoin can *never* work. Miners being net-econo-rational actually *IS* probably a core axiom that must be accepted for Bitcoin to be viable. So arguments that reject that idea are worthless.
...

Wow, this sort of blew my mind.  Can we prove this somehow?  And if we did prove this, would it not logically follow that top-down planning à la Core Dev (e.g., using the block size as a policy tool rather than allowing it to emerge naturally) is at best redundant and at worst damaging?

The fact is, Peter, that the blocksize limit acts as a buffer to decentralisation as well as a limit to transactions. I know you keep trying to argue the opposite, but then again, the main critcism of the block-size-as-a-scaling-solution camp has been precisely that; that you're trying to argue that black is white.

It's really simple: having a limit acts as a cap to dishonest players in the mining field increasing the blocksize faster than the rest of the market can withstand. Mining economics is determined by the access to competitive rates for the resources to mine with, and incumbents in the datacenter sector can simply swallow the mining industry up, destroying decentralisation of mining.

Your idea does actually sound good on the face of it: let the size be determined naturally. But your idea for how to achieve that is poor. Activity on the network demonstrates entirely the opposite of Melbustus' proposition: miners, transacters and simple relay nodes alike have been used as attack vectors. Bad actors exist. And let's be honest for once, Peter, you're one of them.

[VeritasSapere]

at least I do not resort to ad hominem attacks and appeals to authority like many of the small blockists on this forum do.

In which case, make a square out of the circle above.

I have never said that we should increase the blocksize because Satoshi said so, that would indeed be a flawed argument. I have already made my arguments independently from the founders vision, it just happens that I do agree with this original vision and the small blockists do not. I only pointed this out as a response to the claim that not increasing the blocksize is more inline with the original vision of Bitcoin. The argument can be made however that Bitcoin should follow this original vision, I have not made this argument however.

Can I ask you to elaborate on this?

I am not sure how I could elaborate on this, what I am saying here is pretty simple after all. I am often accused of repeating myself so I will do you the favor and not repeat myself again.

And here's an underhand tactic you and others happily resort to: constant repetition of things that just aren't true.

Please tell me specifically where I am wrong, in terms of the facts. Since I thought that our disagreement stems from a fundamental ideological disagreement, not one based on a flawed understanding of physical reality.

Ok, you're specifically wrong in the reply you made immediately below: (straight after...)

I am not sure what you are referring to, a quote would be helpful.

Show me the evidence: no-one has insulted anyone on the basis of anything personal, but they have insulted their ideas.

Why do I even need to prove this? I only said that I do not resort to ad hominem, which is not the same as saying that no one does, which would be a ridiculous claim to make anyway, certainly not one that I ever made.

You claim you've been "insulted and attacked on a continuous basis", but the evidence for that simply doesn't exist. As I said, your beliefs and ideas have been ridiculed, but only those that relate specifically to this debate. Not ad hominem.

I do not understand why you even want to make this point, I suppose I should quote some examples now:

The vast majority of XT supporters are sock-puppet shill accounts, and there aren't that many of them. So for now, there is only the appearance of split community. Just a veneer.

XD Veritas, so you don't care if for make a full node there will be a budget of 100,000$ only in eletricity? I agree with brg444 in this case because all what you just wrote not only is meaningless but even stupid

Pathetic lies.

I thought I asked you to stop promoting disgusting lies

Carlton, talking with VeritasSapere is useless, even if you quote what he wrote before, he will always deny that and start doing some mess around that instead of admit defeat

I disagree, I'm a very well off European with very cheap internet access and I personally don't think it is inconvenient nor expensive to run my node. Third-world problems are not my problems.

The highlighted quote was not made by me. Brg444 has unethically and falsely used my name in a quote which I am not responsible for, it was most likely written by him. To do this is wrong, it is fraud, libel and slander. I have requested that he ceases to falsely quote me yet he continues to do so.

dude stop playing the victim, i saw that post on the thread posted under your name, for once admit you just wrote something and anyway you know thay you are the only one posting more then the others?

It was indeed me who imagined these lines and stuck them under one of his posts' header so as to present what I thought would be his likely answer to a certain argument.

Watch it happen retard.

And this reveals the dishonesty of your position (as ever).

If you wish to continue shouting about sophistry and conceited arguments, remember that you're already shouting as such all too frequently.

Coming from the most notorious subverter of arguments on this board, not to mention one of those who (now) complains most loudly about the subversion of arguments, I'm surprised you're still working away, paragraph after paragraph, continuing to perform what is possibly the first ever world record attempt for an unhalting subversive stream of arguments.

What a relentless shill.

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.

I could easily go back and provide you with more examples, this is going back only ten pages, I do not see the point in this exercise however and it feels like a waste of my time. Since the claim that I have not been subjected to any attacks on my character whatsoever is obviously untenable, as I said earlier it is actually a rather ridiculous claim to make. I have only provided these quotes since you did challenge me to do so.

[VeritasSapere]

...
This sort of argument boils down to an assumption that miners are not net economically-rational. If you think that, then you must think that bitcoin can *never* work. Miners being net-econo-rational actually *IS* probably a core axiom that must be accepted for Bitcoin to be viable. So arguments that reject that idea are worthless.
...

Wow, this sort of blew my mind.  Can we prove this somehow?  And if we did prove this, would it not logically follow that top-down planning à la Core Dev (e.g., using the block size as a policy tool rather than allowing it to emerge naturally) is at best redundant and at worst damaging?

The proof exists, the evidence is that Bitcoin works today. It has worked for the last six years. The entire concept of Bitcoin relies on the game theory and psychology that miners are net economically rational, otherwise proof of work would not function effectively like it does today. Bitcoin is build on this concept of aligning the incentives of the miners, if this concept is proven to be flawed then so would the entire concept of Bitcoin as we know it today. Therefore that miners are net economically rational is and always has been a core axiom of Bitcoin.

[Peter R]

...
This sort of argument boils down to an assumption that miners are not net economically-rational. If you think that, then you must think that bitcoin can *never* work. Miners being net-econo-rational actually *IS* probably a core axiom that must be accepted for Bitcoin to be viable. So arguments that reject that idea are worthless.
...

Wow, this sort of blew my mind.  Can we prove this somehow?  And if we did prove this, would it not logically follow that top-down planning à la Core Dev (e.g., using the block size as a policy tool rather than allowing it to emerge naturally) is at best redundant and at worst damaging?

The fact is, Peter, that the blocksize limit acts as a buffer to decentralisation as well as a limit to transactions. I know you keep trying to argue the opposite, but then again, the main critcism of the block-size-as-a-scaling-solution camp has been precisely that; that you're trying to argue that black is white.

We can deduce how changes to the block size limit, Qmax, affect the behavior of the system, while holding all other variables constant (including changes to demand/adoption with time):

1. Policy actions are only effective for Qmax < Q*, where Q* is the free market equilibrium block size.
2. Network security is maximized for some Qmax | 0 < Qmax < Q* , resulting in greater network security than the no-limit case.
3. The Blockchain’s growth rate increases monotonically as Qmax increases (for Qmax < Q*).
4. The price per byte for block space decreases monotonically as Qmax increases (for Qmax < Q*).
5. Total economic activity grows monotonically as Qmax increases (for Qmax < Q*), and is maximized for all Qmax >= Q*.

So, yes, I agree that having a limit Qmax < Q* results in slower blockchain growth and greater security (for a given demand curve).  It also results in reduced economic activity and higher fees, suggesting that adoption (and with it future security) would also be hindered.

The idea that Core Dev should use the block size limit as a policy tool to balance blockchain growth with transaction fees is definitely interesting. It reminds me of J.M. Keynes's idea that state intervention was necessary to moderate "boom and bust" cycles of economic activity.  

It's really simple: having a limit acts as a cap to dishonest players in the mining field increasing the blocksize faster than the rest of the market can withstand. Mining economics is determined by the access to competitive rates for the resources to mine with, and incumbents in the datacenter sector can simply swallow the mining industry up, destroying decentralisation of mining.

I don't disagree.  I like the comfort of having a limit.  

Your idea does actually sound good on the face of it: let the size be determined naturally.

I want to let the size and the limit on the size be determined naturally by the free market--that is, without top-down intervention.

[brg444]

The idea that Core Dev should use the block size limit as a policy tool to balance blockchain growth with transaction fees is definitely interesting. It reminds me of J.M. Keynes's idea that state intervention was necessary to moderate "boom and bust" cycles of economic activity.

It isn't the Core Dev per say that dictate this limit but the network of peers (full nodes). If ever they decide that the current implementation of the protocol is obsolete only they hold the power to move away from it. By all accounts they haven't yet so we can assume that the market that constitutes the Bitcoin network has decided that the existing block size limit is a valid policy tool.

I want to let the size and the limit on the size be determined naturally by the free market--that is, without top-down intervention.

And how exactly would you go about doing that.

[hdbuck]

Bitcoin is capped by DESIGN.

No reddit mob, nor devs (whether core or not), nor miners, nor pseudo academics charlatans can change the protocol.

But, you are indeed entirely free to fork off with your QE fantasies.

[Peter R]

The idea that Core Dev should use the block size limit as a policy tool to balance blockchain growth with transaction fees is definitely interesting. It reminds me of J.M. Keynes's idea that state intervention was necessary to moderate "boom and bust" cycles of economic activity.

It isn't the Core Dev per say that dictate this limit but the network of peers (full nodes). If ever they decide that the current implementation of the protocol is obsolete only they hold the power to move away from it. By all accounts they haven't yet so we can assume that the market that constitutes the Bitcoin network has decided that the existing block size limit is a valid policy tool.

I agree: in reality, the power that Core Dev has over the evolution of Bitcoin is illusory (at least in the long run and especially if they choose to fight the market).  Consensus is ultimately determined by the code we run.

I want to let the size and the limit on the size be determined naturally by the free market--that is, without top-down intervention.

And how exactly would you go about doing that.

Doing exactly what we are doing: educating the community that the power over the evolution of Bitcoin lies in the hands of the user for the reasons you just described.   Here is a great post on the topic:

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/3skbkz/forkology_101_the_source_of_the_sanctity_of_the/

[hdbuck]

*educating*

wow, no kidding.