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

[DooMAD]

BTW..



XT #REKT, BITCOIN UP!

BTW..



FUD Thread #REKT, brg444 admitted miners want larger blocks.  

Again, no amount of twist and turns will make you right. The miners prefer clients who can pay for their services. If "the majority" can't, they won't think twice about leaving them in the dust.

What twists and turns?  So you're telling me the miners are placing their votes for BIP proposals right now just for shits and giggles?  Some of them clearly want larger blocks.  If you don't want that, you better find a compromise pretty sharpish.  Face the very evident reality in which we currently reside.  If that rather singular belief that you don't need to compromise is what your entire argument hinges on, you're going to be sorely disappointed and it's you who is going to be left in the dust. 

OF COURSE THE MINERS WANT BIGGER BLOCKS.

[hdbuck]

wtf? like we care about what miners (only) want.. consensus hellowww..

i mean duhhh this is no news that (big) miners want bigger blocks so they can try at control the network..

but it wont happen under such circumstances.

so how about you n00b gtf(ork)o because we are rejoicing here.  

[DooMAD]

wtf? like we care about what miners want..

i mean duhhh this is no news that (big) miners want bigger blocks so they can try at control the network..

but it wont happen under such circonstances.

so how about you n00b gtf(ork)o because we are rejoicing here.  

Well I hope the miners are seeing this.  The asset-class #rektum brigade don't care about miners, but still genuinely believe the miners will stick around to be their bitch and validate their occasional transactions when they aren't hodling.  Yeah, good luck with that sales pitch.   

Again, you could stop overreacting for a second and think about this more carefully.  Recognise the fact that (as you claim you understand) the incentives for the miners and the wider network have to align and you need the miners.  Recognise the fact that you aren't going to get another chance to compromise if you blow this one.  Recognise the fact that a permanent 1mb blocksize is untenable in an open source coin.  If you genuinely want a small blocksize, you need to get behind a compromise proposal that others can support. 

You can do this the easy way, or the hard way.  Choose carefully.

[hdbuck]

wtf? like we care about what miners want..

i mean duhhh this is no news that (big) miners want bigger blocks so they can try at control the network..

but it wont happen under such circonstances.

so how about you n00b gtf(ork)o because we are rejoicing here.  

Well I hope the miners are seeing this.  The asset-class #rektum brigade don't care about miners, but still genuinely believe the miners will stick around to be their bitch and validate their occasional transactions when they aren't hodling.  Yeah, good luck with that sales pitch.  

Again, you could stop overreacting for a second and think about this more carefully.  Recognise the fact that (as you claim you understand) the incentives for the miners and the wider network have to align and you need the miners.  Recognise the fact that you aren't going to get another chance to compromise if you blow this one.  Recognise the fact that a permanent 1mb blocksize is untenable in an open source coin.  If you genuinely want a small blocksize, you need to get behind a compromise proposal that others can support.  

You can do this the easy way, or the hard way.  Choose carefully.

You are the one always overreacting, phagocytizing the (non) debate with you fallacies, and talking about things you dont qualify to grasp..

Im not a 1MB 4eva lulz cheering noob. I'm a timing, data and testing advocate. (which is all what BIP000 is about)

Miners get to mine something valuable because we, the (ACTUAL!) users, gives it its value.

So I sure hope they get to see what im saying because any power grab attempt on their behalf is going to result as a BITCOIN PRICE FALL, the same way it fell when Ghash.io had about 50% of hashrate, rememba?

(And the same way it fell when gavin was at his ATH "governance" BS with his XT fork buddy hearn)


So to get things clear for your twisted little brainwashed socialist mind, maybe try connect the dots here:

CONSENSUS > DECENTRALIZATION > SECURITY >VALUE

now if you dont get it from here, ima just put you on ignore, so you wont cry after me being so mean on you clueless noob.

[iCEBREAKER]

I've stayed out of this debate because I really don't understand it. Maybe one of you can explain it to me. Here's what I see.

Everyone is delusional and believes there are 100 million users out there in the ether just dying to use Bitcoin but can't because the current limit keeps it from being used (Satoshidice proved that to be false long ago). We have to find a fix for this spam restriction issue within the next year or chicken little is going to fall from the sky and take a giant shit on Bitcoin. There's a couple of ways to do it that involve different levels of increase. The Chinese (mining majority) want an 8mb increase because 8 is a lucky number in China and their bandwidth isn't good enough to support a larger change. Part of the tiny dev team want sidechains to do it because they work for a company that will profit from it. Another part wants to raise the cap some and another part wants to raise it a lot.

Am I close at all and if not what am I missing?

You've got the gist of the debate, which is predicated on a false (empirically denied by the results of the stress tests) sense of urgency.

You've wrong about the defamatory Sidechains=Block$treamCon$piracy nonsense.  BTC core devs can name their price in the private sector; they don't need to resort to cartoonish Snidely Whiplash schemes.  You should know that by now...

Here's a key bit of info you missed:



Lightning's scaling potential also stacks on top of side and alt chains.

LN can run on top of sidechains which are pegged to LTC, VIA, XCN, XPM, PPC, and perhaps even XMR (probably/eventually).

All of these Layer 2+ and Layer A+ permutations depend on Bitcoin's Layer 1 remaining diverse, diffuse, defensible, and resilient.

That's why I support davout's BIP000 (AKA Bram Cohen's "1MB now, then reassess in 2 years" proposal).

The most important point BIP000 makes is "blocks must necessarily be full for the Bitcoin network to be able to pay for its own security."

If you don't understand that simple yet profound fact, you don't understand Bitcoin (and probably failed Econ 1).

[iCEBREAKER]

Why don't they just take the cap out completely?

Good question; it comes up so often that I'll put the answer in my sig.

Answer:

"blocks must necessarily be full for the Bitcoin network to be able to pay for its own security." -davout

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3jhwi3/i_support_bip000/

[hdbuck]

Why don't they just take the cap out completely?

Good question; it comes up so often that I'll put the answer in my sig.

Answer:

"blocks must necessarily be full for the Bitcoin network to be able to pay for its own security." -davout

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3jhwi3/i_support_bip000/

so classy..

[iCEBREAKER]

XT has zero support now.

What?

https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/
http://xt.coin.dance

Sounds about right. Not enough support to be relevant.

For now but it could change. Saying zero support is outright misinformation.

Taking about XT on obscure forums for fractious malcontents does not constitute actual support.

XT has 0.1% of the network.  Rounded to the nearest whole number, that equals zero support.



Also, that singular "XT" block was mined with a spoofed version string, not by an actual XT node.

So in reality, XT support is stuck at absolute zero.   

[iCEBREAKER]

That's a very bold statement here and far from being true. Solving the Byzantine generals problem was once considered impossible too.

And it was never technically solved, because it is impossible. All Bitcoin does is carefully arrange incentives to work around the problem.

Satoshi's solution to (or, if you prefer, workaround for) the BGP gets all the attention, but His careful arrangement of incentives is IMO an equally sublime manifestation of transcendent genius.

[iCEBREAKER]

There is more discussion on this here: http://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-12#post-392

I wouldn't recommend this thread to anyone. It's certainly the biggest circlejerk currently running in the Bitcoin community.

Join us at bitco.in!

Bitco.in Members Online: 3

That's not enough XTurds for a circlejerk.  They'll have to settle for a triangle jerk instead.   

[QuestionAuthority]

Thanks again for the responses. I've read as much of the info you all provided as I could before it forced me to take a half hour nap in my chair. I still see most of the issue as being a giant nerd coder drama fest. However, if I had to choose, I would implement a small increase now to test the waters. More of an increase can be performed later if needed. As soon as side chains can be perfected they can always be tried at that time without changing anything else.

The one thing I'm sure of is this constant bickering between the old women wearing the dev hats needs to stop. They're tearing the worlds trust in Bitcoin apart for no reason. Everyone seems to forget that the worlds potential future Bitcoin users see everything that's happening. Why make them feel like the ones in charge of the future direction are bickering imbeciles?

[brg444]

On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 6:13 PM, Mike Hearn <mike at plan99.net> wrote:
> Whilst it would be nice if miners in China can carry on forever regardless
> of their internet situation, nobody has any inherent "right" to mine if they
> can't do the job - if miners in China can't get the trivial amounts of
> bandwidth required through their firewall and end up being outcompeted then
> OK, too bad, we'll have to carry on without them.
>
> But I'm not sure why it should be a big deal. They can always run a node on
> a server in Taiwan and connect the hardware to it via a VPN or so.

Ignorant. You seem do not understand the current situation. We
suffered from orphans a lot when we started in 2013. It is now your
turn. If Western miners do not find a China-based VPN into China, or
if Western pools do not manage to improve their connectivity to China,
or run a node in China, it would be them to have higher orphans, not
us. Because we have 50%+.

Stumbled on some gems reading the dev list

#REKT

 

[TooDumbForBitcoin]

There is more discussion on this here: http://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-12#post-392

I wouldn't recommend this thread to anyone. It's certainly the biggest circlejerk currently running in the Bitcoin community.

Join us at bitco.in!

Bitco.in Members Online: 3

That's not enough XTurds for a circlejerk.  They'll have to settle for a triangle jerk instead.   

Hey, Icebreaker, you and cypherdick were on the same side during the HF scam.  Now you're on opposite sides of the XT drama.  How'd that happen?  I haven't noticed any direct attacks by you against cypherdick during the XT fight, but maybe I've missed them.  Any comment?

[Peter R]

On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 6:13 PM, Mike Hearn <mike at plan99.net> wrote:
> Whilst it would be nice if miners in China can carry on forever regardless
> of their internet situation, nobody has any inherent "right" to mine if they
> can't do the job - if miners in China can't get the trivial amounts of
> bandwidth required through their firewall and end up being outcompeted then
> OK, too bad, we'll have to carry on without them.
>
> But I'm not sure why it should be a big deal. They can always run a node on
> a server in Taiwan and connect the hardware to it via a VPN or so.

Ignorant. You seem do not understand the current situation. We
suffered from orphans a lot when we started in 2013. It is now your
turn. If Western miners do not find a China-based VPN into China, or
if Western pools do not manage to improve their connectivity to China,
or run a node in China, it would be them to have higher orphans, not
us. Because we have 50%+.

Stumbled on some gems reading the dev list

#REKT

 

Both the Chinese and non-Chinese miners will suffer higher orphan rates than if the connectivity through the Great Firewall of China was faster.  The side with the greater hash power will suffer less losses due to orphans (all else equal); however, miners from either side will directly benefit by finding ways to improve connectivity with those on the other side of the wall.  In other words, there is a mutual incentive to get around the wall. 

[brg444]

On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 6:13 PM, Mike Hearn <mike at plan99.net> wrote:
> Whilst it would be nice if miners in China can carry on forever regardless
> of their internet situation, nobody has any inherent "right" to mine if they
> can't do the job - if miners in China can't get the trivial amounts of
> bandwidth required through their firewall and end up being outcompeted then
> OK, too bad, we'll have to carry on without them.
>
> But I'm not sure why it should be a big deal. They can always run a node on
> a server in Taiwan and connect the hardware to it via a VPN or so.

Ignorant. You seem do not understand the current situation. We
suffered from orphans a lot when we started in 2013. It is now your
turn. If Western miners do not find a China-based VPN into China, or
if Western pools do not manage to improve their connectivity to China,
or run a node in China, it would be them to have higher orphans, not
us. Because we have 50%+.

Stumbled on some gems reading the dev list

#REKT

 

Both the Chinese and non-Chinese miners will suffer higher orphan rates than if the connectivity through the Great Firewall of China was faster.  The side with the greater hash power will suffer less losses due to orphans (all else equal); however, miners from either side will directly benefit by finding ways to improve connectivity with those on the other side of the wall.  In other words, there is a mutual incentive to get around the wall. 

Peter I'm curious if you've considered Adam's blockchain extension proposal?
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/39kqzs/how_about_a_softfork_optin_blocksize_increase

It seems to provide, in some capacity, the type of node liberty you wished for.

[jonald_fyookball]

Why don't they just take the cap out completely?

Good question; it comes up so often that I'll put the answer in my sig.

Answer:

"blocks must necessarily be full for the Bitcoin network to be able to pay for its own security." -davout

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3jhwi3/i_support_bip000/

I read this reddit.

I'm not so sure that this "tragedy of the commons",
would be fatal... which is the central argument of this Reddit post.

What the Redditor is saying is the following:

If you have a normal minimum fee, say .0001 BTC,
what happens if a large pool drops their minimum fee
to half that?  Most users would only pay the new
minimum of .00005, content to wait till that pool mines their
next block.  With such a small fee, it is likely that
no one can make money and so many miners will give up
and drop out of the network or switch to that pool.

So far the argument makes sense.

However, how does the pool that is driving everyone out
pay their bills?  They have to eventually raise their
fees to at least cover costs.  

Any way you slice it, a new equilibrium will be reached.

It's just a different version of what we have today,
where the difficulty level reaches an equilibrium based on
how money miners are able to afford to invest
into hashing power.

Yes, when subsidies are gone or greatly diminished,
the overall network hashrate may be lower than it is today,
depending on the transaction volume.  Perhaps transaction fees
would become percentage based if volume was low.

But I still think it would be possible to have the free market
work it out without limiting the blocksize.  The only question
would be how much security would we get.

If security is low because transaction volume is low,
the idea behind limiting the blocksize would be to
squeeze more dollars out of that limited pool of
transactions.  But by what factor can they increase it over
the free market?  Can they double it?  Triple it?  
If X hashes/second is insufficient, who is to say that 3X is?

It's a very interesting topic and probably some mathematical
models can be run.

But I think the blanket statement made here is false, unless someone
can show me otherwise with some hard figures.

P.S.  Still semi-ignoring this thread because of all the noise.
Don't expect me to reply to your response unless you make
a solid point.  Thanks.

[brg444]

Why don't they just take the cap out completely?

Good question; it comes up so often that I'll put the answer in my sig.

Answer:

"blocks must necessarily be full for the Bitcoin network to be able to pay for its own security." -davout

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3jhwi3/i_support_bip000/

I read this reddit.

I'm not so sure that this "tragedy of the commons",
would be fatal... which is the central argument of this Reddit post.

**zip**

I'm not sure this is the tragedy of the commons idea he's referring to.

My guess is he's essentially referring to what I also proposed to be a tragedy of the commons in that miners will be incentivized to include as many transactions as possible within their blocks at potentially very little cost while the cost of a bloated blockchain are externalized to the nodes who are not paid for their work.

Here are two quotes from Matt Corrallo on that subject:

The vast majority of the hashpower is behind very large miners, who have little to no decentralization pressure. This results in very incompatible incentives, mainly that the incentive would be for the large miners to interconnect in a private network and generate only maximum-size blocks, creating a strong centralization pressure in the network.

The issue of miners optimizing for returns has been discussed several times during this discussion, and, sadly, miners who are geographically colocated who are optimizing for returns with a free-floating blocksize will optimize away 50% of the network!

Note that "optimize" here essentially means "centralize".

[jonald_fyookball]

@brg444,

Thank you for an on-topic response.

However, it sounds like you and Matt are speaking to something else and so
I can't really comment.

My understanding of the Davout reddit argument of "blocks must be full"
is because if blockspace isn't a scarce resource, then everyone will
just pay the minimum fee that any reasonably sized pool charges and ALL
of the transactions in the mempool will get in.  

(But as I said, I contest the logic of that argument.)

Even IF the Davout argument turns out to have merit,
it would still make sense to allow for bigger blocks now
since the subsidies are likely going to be higher than fees
for at least a decade.

[Peter R]

@brg444,

Thank you for an on-topic response.

However, it sounds like you and Matt are speaking to something else and so
I can't really comment.

My understanding of the Davout reddit argument of "blocks must be full"
is because if blockspace isn't a scarce resource, then everyone will
just pay the minimum fee that any reasonably sized pool charges and ALL
of the transactions in the mempool will get in.  

(But as I said, I contest the logic of that argument.)

Even IF the Davout argument turns out to have merit,
it would still make sense to allow for bigger blocks now
since the subsidies are likely going to be higher than fees
for at least a decade.

Many of the small-blockers thinks that because "demand for block space can be considered infinite," that we need a block size limit to keep blocks from becoming arbitrarily large. There's a quote by Revalin that "Bitcoin is the Devil's way of teaching geeks economics."  This is certainly true in this case, because the economists resolved the paradox of "infinite demand" over 100 years ago. 

Indeed, demand can be considered infinite, but only as the price of the commodity tends to zero.  As the price increases, the quantity demanded decreases.  This is known as the Law of Demand. 

In the case of Bitcoin, the cost to produce block space grows exponentially with the size of the block (source) due to the increased chances of orphaning a larger block.  This means that the supply curve always intersects the demand curve at a finite block size.  This is the reason the transaction fee market exists without a block size limit. 

It's basically just another way of saying that there's nothing special about the new economic commodity called "block space."  The Laws of Supply and Demand apply like the do for other commodities. 

[jonald_fyookball]

Peter,

can we agree that there is no universal law that says "blocks must be full to pay for security"
even if it was said on Reddit?