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

[brg444]

Miners incentives in mining blocks are NOT aligned with node users and leaving them the decision as to what size the block should be inevitably leads to an ostracization of low bandwidth nodes. The centralizing effect is undeniable.

I am afraid you are mistaken.

Low bandwitch nodes will exit the market the same way as unproductive producers exit any given market under free competition. It's a mechanism as old as markets. Do you see a centralization of production in market economy?

The fundamental mistake underlying your assertion is to assume that because there is a selection process it's somehow undermine competion (needless to say that competition is the essential decentralization force).

Both (selection process and competition) can exist at the same time.

The peer-to-peer network is not a production market.

[brg444]

It's #REKTING SEASON 

[BldSwtTrs]

Miners incentives in mining blocks are NOT aligned with node users and leaving them the decision as to what size the block should be inevitably leads to an ostracization of low bandwidth nodes. The centralizing effect is undeniable.

I am afraid you are mistaken.

Low bandwitch nodes will exit the market the same way as unproductive producers exit any given market under free competition. It's a mechanism as old as markets. Do you see a centralization of production in market economy?

The fundamental mistake underlying your assertion is to assume that because there is a selection process it's somehow undermine competion (needless to say that competition is the essential decentralization force).

Both (selection process and competition) can exist at the same time.

The peer-to-peer network is not a production market.

That was just an example which illustrates that in a real world environnement competition and selection are not antithecial.

Low bandwitch nodes exiting the node pool doesn't imply nodes centralization. You need to get back with a better argument or accept that your conclusion is flawed.

[Cconvert2G36]

...
considering bitcoin's network effect and decentralization, it is simply too late to highjack it.

Indeed, the protocol being subject to design change would go against the very concept of a decentralized technology and would irrevocably introduce a point of failure precedent.

This is not FED nor ECB meme, to hell with "adjustments" and "quantitative easing".

You two seem to have it all figured out.

A passion for decentralization even led both of you to join the forum around the same time.  

3 might be a coincidence, but I think we have a trend here.

Hearn
Cypherdoc and his pussy posse
Anarchystar & The Bitcoin Phoundation
DeathAndTaxes
Roger Ver
JStolfi
Lambie

I know I'm missing a whole lot here.  

Ah, poor forker brg444. When you run out of ideas, just play the ad hominem card...

I might have to agree with you here. Referring to anyone as "JStolfi" -- even JStolfi himself -- just seems like too dirty of an insult.

 

[brg444]

Miners incentives in mining blocks are NOT aligned with node users and leaving them the decision as to what size the block should be inevitably leads to an ostracization of low bandwidth nodes. The centralizing effect is undeniable.

I am afraid you are mistaken.

Low bandwitch nodes will exit the market the same way as unproductive producers exit any given market under free competition. It's a mechanism as old as markets. Do you see a centralization of production in market economy?

The fundamental mistake underlying your assertion is to assume that because there is a selection process it's somehow undermine competion (needless to say that competition is the essential decentralization force).

Both (selection process and competition) can exist at the same time.

The peer-to-peer network is not a production market.

That was just an example which illustrates that in a real world environnement competition and selection are not antithecial.

Low bandwitch nodes exiting the node pool doesn't imply nodes centralization. You need to get back with a better argument or accept that your conclusion is flawed.

Yes it does because Bitcoin is not about efficiency but resilience. It ought to remain a low-latency network or else it inevitably leads to destruction of fundamental properties.

https://np.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3ycizh/decentralizing_development_can_we_make_bitcoins/cycex9t?context=1

[BldSwtTrs]

Miners incentives in mining blocks are NOT aligned with node users and leaving them the decision as to what size the block should be inevitably leads to an ostracization of low bandwidth nodes. The centralizing effect is undeniable.

I am afraid you are mistaken.

Low bandwitch nodes will exit the market the same way as unproductive producers exit any given market under free competition. It's a mechanism as old as markets. Do you see a centralization of production in market economy?

The fundamental mistake underlying your assertion is to assume that because there is a selection process it's somehow undermine competion (needless to say that competition is the essential decentralization force).

Both (selection process and competition) can exist at the same time.

The peer-to-peer network is not a production market.

That was just an example which illustrates that in a real world environnement competition and selection are not antithecial.

Low bandwitch nodes exiting the node pool doesn't imply nodes centralization. You need to get back with a better argument or accept that your conclusion is flawed.

Yes it does because Bitcoin is not about efficiency but resilience. It ought to remain a low-latency network or else it inevitably leads to destruction of fundamental properties.

https://np.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3ycizh/decentralizing_development_can_we_make_bitcoins/cycex9t?context=1

So let's take another example: the gene pool of any given species. It's about resilience too.
Not useful enough genes exit the gene pool regularly, does that mean that the gene pool of any given species end up gravitating toward a single gene?

If low bandwitch nodes exit the nood pole that only means we will have a fitter node pool. It doesn't imply anything about the node count.

[Cconvert2G36]

[brg444]

See comment from bitcoin.org owner above.

Bitcoin.org is not a public good and is expressing is freedom of speech.

You bedwetters need to cry about something else.

[brg444]

So let's take another example: the gene pool of any given species. It's about resilience too.
Not useful enough genes exit the gene pool regularly, does that mean that the gene pool of any given species end up gravitating toward a single gene?

If low bandwitch nodes exit the nood pole that only means we will have a fitter node pool. It doesn't imply anything about the node count.

The issue is with the pace at which an uncontained block size would allow for large entities to capture the network.

Your analogies are all pretty good but they're beside the point.

Following your argument most of the nodes composing the network as we speak would vanish and would quickly turned into a specialized market likely to consolidate into few large entities.

[Cconvert2G36]

See comment from bitcoin.org owner above.

Bitcoin.org is not a public good and is expressing is freedom of speech.

You bedwetters need to cry about something else.

It's shameful, myopic, and regressive... and totally within their rights.

[hdbuck]

See comment from bitcoin.org owner above.

Bitcoin.org is not a public good and is expressing is freedom of speech.

You bedwetters need to cry about something else.

bouhou the kids are too late at the party,

all the domain left are bitcoinunimited.org, bitcoinxt.rog and bitco.in

[hdbuck]

See comment from bitcoin.org owner above.

Bitcoin.org is not a public good and is expressing is freedom of speech.

You bedwetters need to cry about something else.

It's shameful, myopic, and regressive... and totally within their rights.

wtf are you talking about? how old are you srlsy?

you some kinda moral officer or egalitarian derp?

Let it go, bitcoin is not for you, and needless to go through all the hassle at creating some other altcoin.

go litecoin and dogecoin already kids. Grin

[hdbuck]

See comment from bitcoin.org owner above.

Bitcoin.org is not a public good and is expressing is freedom of speech.

You bedwetters need to cry about something else.

bouhou the kids are too late at the party,

all the domain left are bitcoinunimited.org, bitcoinxt.rog and bitco.in

Let it go, bitcoin is not for you, and needless to go through all the hassle at creating some other altcoin.

go litecoin and dogecoin already kids. Grin

here, have one peanut for you monkey:



isnt life a blessing being utterly stupid?

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

how old are you srlsy?

Such cool. Much slang.  So few vowels.

why are you still hanging around with us old ph0rkers?  

[BldSwtTrs]

So let's take another example: the gene pool of any given species. It's about resilience too.
Not useful enough genes exit the gene pool regularly, does that mean that the gene pool of any given species end up gravitating toward a single gene?

If low bandwitch nodes exit the nood pole that only means we will have a fitter node pool. It doesn't imply anything about the node count.

The issue is with the pace at which an uncontained block size would allow for large entities to capture the network.

Your analogies are all pretty good but they're beside the point.

Following your argument most of the nodes composing the network as we speak would vanish and would quickly turned into a specialized market likely to consolidate into few large entities.

One of the famous false prophecy of Karl Marx is that the free market mechanism would be lead to the monopoly of few corporations (thanks to economy of scale) that would end up controling the world production.

In other world, he tought unconstrained competition would allow for large entities to capture the economy.

The fact that "no constraint" lead to "capture of the stronger" is a very intuitive and very widespread biais, but it's not something which have a strong empirical basis.

On the other hand, we know that protecting a system from the stress of competition turn out to be desastrous for the long-term survival of the said system, because prioritizing the protection of the weakest points of the system lead to fragility of the whole system. Confer Taleb's Antifragility book for an expanded version of that argument.

In a world without blocksize, we don't know how many nodes would vanish nor how many new nodes would appear, but we can be pretty sure that a lot of the existing nodes would upgrade, and thus the nodes network would be more resilient. Focusing only on the nodes that would vanished, without taking into account the creation of new nodes and the widespread improvement of preexisting nodes is a partial view of the problem.

Following the logic of protecting the network from competition to preserve the weakest points we should had limit the increase of mining difficulty to avoid mining specialization (it's obvious that the network would have been far less resilient).

[Lauda]

It seems like you do not get it, everyone essentially can decide the blocksize for themselves under Bitcoin Unlimited, it takes this power away from centralized development teams. In effect this would have to be a negotiation between the miners and the economic majority.

You're the one who doesn't get the question. Since 'everyone can decide', it doesn't answer my question. My question is how? (e.g. voting within the software or something)

[johnyj]

One of the famous false prophecy of Karl Marx is that the free market mechanism would be lead to the monopoly of few corporations (thanks to economy of scale) that would end up controling the world production.

In other world, he tought unconstrained competition would allow for large entities to capture the economy.

This is already realized in many countries, a few large enterprises controlled the production of almost everything in a country. And the best example is the fiat money creation, totally dominated by a few reserve banks, while from the beginning any kind of private currency is allowed to circulate

And the block size limit has nothing to do with free market, it is just a measure to prevent spam attacks, without this limit, a bank can jam the traffic on bitcoin network for months, so that no transaction can be done at all

It is very interesting that the longer you work with bitcoin, the more you understand that in such a decentralized system, true free market does not really work, it is in fact very socialized, since everyone's interest is tied to the strongest chain in the end. You can fork what ever chain you like but the value of that chain will be minimal (since it break the most important promise of bitcoin - limited total supply, any fork is inflation, bring in more money supply) thus make that move meaningless market wise

[Peter R]

And the block size limit has nothing to do with free market, it is just a measure to prevent spam attacks, without this limit, a bank can jam the traffic on bitcoin network for months, so that no transaction can be done at all

I don't think anyone is suggesting that all nodes and miners should be compelled to stop enforcing a block size limit.  I think it's more of a question of how that limit should be determined.  Should it be decreed by experts in a "top-down" process, or should it emerge naturally through a "bottom-up" process? 

[brg444]

And the block size limit has nothing to do with free market, it is just a measure to prevent spam attacks, without this limit, a bank can jam the traffic on bitcoin network for months, so that no transaction can be done at all

I don't think anyone is suggesting that all nodes and miners should be compelled to stop enforcing a block size limit.  I think it's more of a question of how that limit should be determined.  Should it be decreed by experts in a "top-down" process, or should it emerge naturally through a "bottom-up" process? 

Nodes decide the code they run and if there was consensus amongst these peers that the block size should be increased then it would.

Is that not "bottom-up" enough for your liking?

[johnyj]

And the block size limit has nothing to do with free market, it is just a measure to prevent spam attacks, without this limit, a bank can jam the traffic on bitcoin network for months, so that no transaction can be done at all

I don't think anyone is suggesting that all nodes and miners should be compelled to stop enforcing a block size limit.  I think it's more of a question of how that limit should be determined.  Should it be decreed by experts in a "top-down" process, or should it emerge naturally through a "bottom-up" process?  

It will be based on user feedback, but not something out of thin air. Users must physically experience the problem and send their feedback to change the current design.

Are Blocks Filling up, and Is That a Problem?