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

[VeritasSapere]

of course let's not sure make sure that Bitcoin is resilient to attacks from totalitarian governments and handicapped internet grids in war-torn countries and other areas of geo-political instabilities. because fuck these people right, they can't have Bitcoin, just too bad they weren't born in cozy north america  

much rather design it to work only in the la-la land of infinite growth where progress never stops and government are perfectly fine with Bitcoin challenging their monetary sovereignty

have you guys ever opened an history book? do you not see the debacle unfolding before your very eyes on the international scene? do you really imagine that the next decade is going to be some kind of rosy economic prosperity where citizens of the world and their government hold hands and sing kumbaya!?

In terms of resistance against government persecution there are different ways to look at it, I think that adoption is important because of how it relates to decentralization and security. If more people adopt Bitcoin it would by extension lead to more people running full nodes. It would also make Bitcoin more secure from suppression or persecution from governments or other entities. Since the more people that use Bitcoin the more difficult it will become to attack. In the history of file sharing for example, it was in part because of the shear number of people using it that prevented effective persecution, not because of anonymising technologies. More users and uses for Bitcoin gives Bitcoin more value, and therefore by extension more security because of the increased incentive for mining.

[erik777]

I'm not so sure that altcoins have a lot more throughput than Bitcoin after reading this summary of testnet limitations of BitShare 2.0, which is claiming it an reach 100k TPS in the real-world:

Bitshares full nodes are very different to Bitcoin. Bitshares is delegated proof of stake, as far as I understand it there are only 100 full nodes which are incentivized and voted into position by the users based on the amount they hold. Other examples would be Dash which has fully incentivized full nodes implemented in a more decentralized fashion compared to Bitcoin. Ethereum also has some interesting solutions to scalability as well.

Yes, and that is sort of my point.  You can throw out PoW, relieving a lot of CPU/GPU/ASIC intensive work (without getting into security implications), and, like Bitcoin, the primary bottlenck is still networking.  

I am not referring to PoW in these examples, I was referring to full nodes which are dealing with the primary bottleneck of networking.

At the cost of decentralization.  This is just trying to find a happy place between Bitcoin and Visa.  Yet, it is clear that they acknowledge, that the primary issue is networking.  

We agree on the primary point.  So, let's apply that to the discussions on this thread.  

Does XT solve the primary scalability issue facing Bitcoin today... networking load and latency?

No because these issues did not arise yet so there is no incentive to solve them yet?

It is if you want to increase TPS while preserving decentralization.  I think most people support increasing the block size.  We just want to see a hard fork that addresses scalability holistically, not just one element of it, only to require yet another hard fork to finish the job.  

To be sure, there are some good proposals for improving network efficiency while preserving decentralization and security.  They just require a hard fork, as does increasing the block size.  Let's have ONE hard fork that truly paves the way for scalability.  

XT does not offer the holistic scalability solution we need, and definitely introduces too many risks we don't need.

Which are those proposal? Any doc?

Standardizing efficient block propogation
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Scalability_FAQ#O.281.29_block_propagation

Protecting security while scaling
https://eprint.iacr.org/2015/578.pdf
"our findings show that the countermeasure adopted in
Bitcoin XT to prevent the double-spending of fast payments can be
easily circumvented by a resource-constrained adversary."

Ultimate blockchain compression w/ trust-free lite nodes
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=88208.0

Do we have a complete holistic proposal yet?  No, but we know that XT isn't it, and we have some idea what that holistic approach needs to include.  Let's focus on building that holistic consensus proposal, and THEN consider how to introduce it with a had fork, rather than setting us up for many hard forks with a lot of unnecessary risk.
 

[jonald_fyookball]

tvbcof, I think you are on the pessimistic side of the spectrum with regards to how much control the people will let governments have.  The long term historical trend of mankind has been out of darkness and ignorance and toward greater freedom, and that trend is greatly accelerated in the Information Age.  Cryptocurrencies may parabollically increase it even further, and will likely evolve and thwart attempts to control them.  

As far as Peter's wager, don't get it twisted.  It's very straightforward..  no one wants to take the bet.

[tvbcof]

of course let's not sure make sure that Bitcoin is resilient to attacks from totalitarian governments and handicapped internet grids in war-torn countries and other areas of geo-political instabilities. because fuck these people right, they can't have Bitcoin, just too bad they weren't born in cozy north america  

much rather design it to work only in the la-la land of infinite growth where progress never stops and government are perfectly fine with Bitcoin challenging their monetary sovereignty

have you guys ever opened an history book? do you not see the debacle unfolding before your very eyes on the international scene? do you really imagine that the next decade is going to be some kind of rosy economic prosperity where citizens of the world and their government hold hands and sing kumbaya!?

In terms of resistance against government persecution there are different ways to look at it, I think that adoption is important because of how it relates to decentralization and security. If more people adopt Bitcoin it would by extension lead to more people running full nodes. It would also make Bitcoin more secure from suppression or persecution from governments or other entities. Since the more people that use Bitcoin the more difficult it will become to attack. In the history of file sharing for example, it was in part because of the shear number of people using it that prevented effective persecution, not because of anonymising technologies. More users and uses for Bitcoin gives Bitcoin more value, and therefore by extension more security because of the increased incentive for mining.

So you anticipate that if Bitcoin starts to get traction and take food out of the mouths of the mainstream financial system beneficiaries (financial system corporate, govt, etc) they are going to say: 'Drat!  Those darned geeky hodlers won and there is nothing we can do about it because Freedom.'

Or are you believing that there will be such a world-wide groundswell of support for Bitcoiners that citizens will take up arms against the persecutors and overthrow the evil govts on our behalf?

Are you a fucking idiot?  Or just completely out-of-touch with reality?

I say as I always have that Bitcoin is at it's core a guerrilla currency and we should not slack off on protecting it through it's potential strengths as such.  If I were on the other side of the fence and worried about it (as I would be), I would have taken pains to lull the community into complacency and detract from developments which would strengthen it against attack until a good opportunity to drop the hammer came.  That opportunity would likely come with unrelated opportunities to tighten up on the internet generally as it wormed it's way into a position where it provides a bit more of certain kinds of freedoms than are desirable (thanks in no small part to the cypherpunks.)

[brg444]

I never said this.

Here:

that somehow Bitcoins success is guaranteed even if we all just sit on our holdings while having no regard to its utility.

I disagree, I even personally have ideological reasons for why I prefer using cryptocurrency over traditional payment and monetary systems. If I can no longer do this on the Bitcoin blockchain I will simply move to another blockchain that does allow me to do this. Which relates to my point about competition as well.

I don't care if you disagree "for personal reasons". It is still absolutely true. Bitcoin has an absolutely poor value proposition from a consumer standpoint. If you propose the opposite then you are simply not being honest.

I disagree, I prefer Bitcoin. If I could use it for everything I would.

You are part of an microscopic minority. 99% of the world's population will side with me on this

I do care.

I don't care that you do care. Again, you are a minority and your decision will not move the needle one bit.

I am not advocating for pushing dangerous changes to Bitcoin, I actually think that we should not increase the blocksize beyond conservative projected estimates of the technical limitations for running a full node, mainly bandwidth actually. A guideline could be that most people should be able to run a full node from their homes if they live in the developed world. So please do not mischaracterize my views as dangerous unless you do think that what I have just described is actually dangerous.

You have dangerous views because you attempt to politicize everything and are absolutely ignorant of some critical technical details.

It is not a case of either or, Bitcoin can have notable transactional utility and have a sound monetary theory while remaining decentralized and censorship resistant. These properties are not mutually exclusive, they are actually synergistic. It is a false dichotomy to think that we must choose. Increasing the utility of Bitcoin allows it to be a better store of value. Being a better store of value in turn also allows Bitcoin to function more effectively as payment system. Bitcoin can be many things simultaneously and be different things to different people at the same time, we should not try and restrict Bitcoin.

You're fighting a strawman here. You didn't address my point that Bitcoin as a store-of-value has been the driver of economic growth so far and this is absolutely undisputable.

It will take more time for Bitcoin to be more commonly be accepted as a means of exchange, for some people there are certain psychological barriers to overcome considering some of the anarchistic aspects of Bitcoin, currency without centralized authority. For me Bitcoin is much more then currency, it is trust without centralized authority which can be applied to many applications, including currency. For me the political benefits of using Bitcoin as a currency, as well as a store of value, would have profound effects on global economics and political power. Money is power, Bitcoin changes the fundamental nature of power. The benifits of this are not as easily measured because the true cost of the current financial system is borne through externalities like quantitative easing, regulatory capture, inefficiencies, corruption ect.

The currency and means-of-exchange utility will come in due time, but not before Bitcoin has asserted itself as a dominant economic store of wealth. By that I mean that before we can truly enjoy the promises of Bitcoin as a transactional currency we need to increase its market cap by several orders of magnitude

It seems like you are implying that a conservative blocksize increase would compromise monetary freedom when that is not the case. Again you are setting up a false dichotomy, a false choice. Increasing the block size does not compromise monetary freedom.

Yes, blocksize increase under mostly all of the current propositions paraded by their proponents would absolutely lead to the slow death of Bitcoin as a tool for monetary freedom.

I am not making the generalization of what a user is

Yes you are. You argue that without increase in the transaction throughput (block size) Bitcoin cannot attract more users. This is wrong. You pretend that those looking for cheap alternatives will turn to another cryptocurrency and that this is a danger for Bitcoin. This is wrong.

I think that we should account for many different users of Bitcoin not just the "bankers, lawyers, accountants, government officials" whom you however are saying who the users should be which is a much worse generalization to make, furthermore I would consider that "prohibitive" for most people, myself included.

You are misrepresenting what I said. My comment was that the only alternatives for some people or generally capital worldwide to escape capital control is to pay astronomical fees to "bankers, lawyers, accountants, government officials". In contrast, a 20$ transaction fee to transact on the Bitcoin blockchain is negligible, especially when referring to transactions worth millions of dollars.

If the fee market determines that this the price for transacting on the Bitcoin network based on the technical limitations of the time then it would be justified and I would use an altcoin instead.

Your altcoin will be worthless and will likely have no liquidity. You will therefore use an alternative that seeks to leverage the network effect and value of Bitcoin: LN, voting pools, off-chain.

However that would not be the case if we left the limit at one megabyte since that does not presently represent the median of our current technical limitations, since it is just an arbitrary limit after all.

Every limit in Bitcoin is arbitrary, this argument is absolutely worthless. You also ignore that the resources to run a full node are already pushing the limits of some typical household computer and internet connection. Again you show you technical ineptitude by suggesting we use "the median". What we need to target is lower bound. This is a security-critical system whose main property needs to be resiliency, not efficiency. Therefore we plan and design for worst case scenarios.

Gold was used as a currency for millennia and it has been a good store of value for most of its history simultaneously, these concepts are not incompatible and historically has been how human society has operated for the vast majority of recorded history.

Gold was scarcely used as a currency by the common man. They were typically too poor and would use silver or copper.

[brg444]

of course let's not sure make sure that Bitcoin is resilient to attacks from totalitarian governments and handicapped internet grids in war-torn countries and other areas of geo-political instabilities. because fuck these people right, they can't have Bitcoin, just too bad they weren't born in cozy north america  

much rather design it to work only in the la-la land of infinite growth where progress never stops and government are perfectly fine with Bitcoin challenging their monetary sovereignty

have you guys ever opened an history book? do you not see the debacle unfolding before your very eyes on the international scene? do you really imagine that the next decade is going to be some kind of rosy economic prosperity where citizens of the world and their government hold hands and sing kumbaya!?

In terms of resistance against government persecution there are different ways to look at it, I think that adoption is important because of how it relates to decentralization and security. If more people adopt Bitcoin it would by extension lead to more people running full nodes. It would also make Bitcoin more secure from suppression or persecution from governments or other entities. Since the more people that use Bitcoin the more difficult it will become to attack. In the history of file sharing for example, it was in part because of the shear number of people using it that prevented effective persecution, not because of anonymising technologies. More users and uses for Bitcoin gives Bitcoin more value, and therefore by extension more security because of the increased incentive for mining.

How has that worked for the last 2 years and a half? Again you ignore reality and make arguments based on fantasies.

Governments couldn't care less about file sharing, it has no impact on their ability to govern and only affects certain industries.

If you really believe that more Bitcoin adoption and therefore more challenge to the monetary sovereignty will not bring about more attacks and incentive to destroy Bitcoin then you are quite simply utterly clueless.

[iCEBREAKER]

I've shown these diagrams a lot because I think they reveal the essence of the situation.  If the limit remains to the right of Q*, then it doesn't really matter what the limit is because it does not affect the free market dynamics.  However, if the limit falls to the left of Q*, then the pressure due to the deadweight loss will eventually cause a fork to move the limit back to the right of Q*!  

TL/DR: There is no way to stop Bitcoin from growing.  

Your idealized considerations of spherical blockchains are suitable for academic and altcoin architecture consideration, but serve no positive purpose in the practical matter of Bitcoin's max_block debate.

What you misleadingly mislabel as "deadweight loss" due to a "Political measure" are actually the beneficial artifacts (including anti-spam/DoS externality regulation) of Bitcoin's incentives for creation of fee markets (and the efficiency|antifragility thus accrued).

I'm sure you disagree, so, to avoid a stalemate due to differing opinions, let's appeal to expertise...

You show those diagrams a lot, because you "think they reveal the essence of the situation."

I'm glad you think the "essence" of Bitcoin's Grand Schism can be revealed by a Powerpoint slide or two.

And I'm glad you were able to expose your precious slides to an attentive audience at the first #ScalingBitcoin workshop.

Now, let us consider how many of the experts at that workshop were persuaded by your putative Domination Slide.

Hmm, I can't think of any.  101/XT's slide into oblivion was not paused or halted, and instead accelerated, in the wake of that conference.

[iCEBREAKER]

I'm not sure exactly how it will happen, but somehow the market will find a way to get bigger blocks.  

There's plenty of space in the alt-blocks and off-chain. 

You don't need to broadcast every Frappuchino you buy to the entire network, where it will be stored and verified until the end of time.

Tell LTC, PPC, XPM, XCN, BBR, XDN, AEON, or XMR about your gluten-free-low-fat-double-chocolate-mint-Oreo-half-caff.  Bitcoin ain't got time for that.

[iCEBREAKER]

Bitcoin-NG debuts

Perhaps the most newsworthy event of the day came during the "Testing, Simulation and Modeling" section of the day's content when Cornell computer science post-grad Ittay Eyal presented Bitcoin-NG, a new proposed solution to scaling the bitcoin network.

Developed by Adem Efe Gencer, Emin Gün Sirer and Robbert Van Renesse, Bitcoin-NG seeks lower latency, higher throughput and better security on the bitcoin network by proposing changes to the bitcoin mining process.

The proposal recommends breaking up the process by which miners are provided both a reward for finding a "nonce", the arbitrary number that decides who wins the 25 BTC reward distributed every 10 minutes, and the process by which those winning miners determine the transactions added to the blockchain.

Bitcoin-NG would create two types of blocks: key blocks, which contain no content but elect a "leader"; and microblocks, which would contain only transaction content.

Bitcoin-NG

"Only the leader can generate the private blocks," Eyal explained. "The interval between the key blocks would be 10 minutes, while 'microblocks' come in every 10 seconds."

Under the system, keyblocks would be given the rewards from the mining block, while 40% of fees would go back to the leader and 60% to those who submit microblocks.

The proposal is still in its early stages and no white paper has yet been released.

that's what i'm talking about!
more crazy idea like this, that's the BIPs we need.

Unless Bitcoin breaks (ie, competitive fees fail to prioritize their tx accordingly) Bitcoin's socioeconomic majority will NEVER agree to shoehorn the network into some untested altcoin framework.

Launch BitcoinNG with its own Genesis Block and I might buy some.  Launch EyalCoin as a potentially fatal XT-style parasite on BTC and I will do everything I can to assure it is likewise #REKT.

The sooner you get over the conceit that Bitcoin is going to be re-engineered by a mob from Reddit, the better.

[Zarathustra]

lost ph0rked coins makes ours worth moar.

because secured, as in secured from the noobs and their consumerist dreams as we also get less exposed to all corporate scams.

so bring it on b!tches

Your coin will be the worthless one. The coin for the meme generators, the coin for the warriors, the ad hominems, the DoS'ers, the node fakers, the quote fakers.
The chance that your coin will be the valid one is zero.

[Zarathustra]

"I was having 5 hours dinner with Gavin, Greg Maxwell & Adam Back"

"Why do we hire Bitcoin"

Greg & Adam: "Monetary sovereignty"

Gavin: "Because when I make a payment I feel good"

Monetary sovereignty for the stream blockers.

[Zarathustra]

I will put the summary here again.

Bitcoin can leverage its network effect gained from the first mover advantage in order to play it safe with regards to its limit on block size as the cost to switch would be the highest, but other systems would need to stay within the confines of the home networks in order to provide the same core value proposition to compete with Bitcoin properly.

Bitcoin needs to move only when it absolutely has to, there is no reason to do this at the moment.

Yes. And it should be ready at any moment. Some implementations are, some not.

[Zarathustra]

I'm not so sure that altcoins have a lot more throughput than Bitcoin after reading this summary of testnet limitations of BitShare 2.0, which is claiming it an reach 100k TPS in the real-world:

Bitshares full nodes are very different to Bitcoin. Bitshares is delegated proof of stake, as far as I understand it there are only 100 full nodes which are incentivized and voted into position by the users based on the amount they hold. Other examples would be Dash which has fully incentivized full nodes implemented in a more decentralized fashion compared to Bitcoin. Ethereum also has some interesting solutions to scalability as well.

Yes, and that is sort of my point.  You can throw out PoW, relieving a lot of CPU/GPU/ASIC intensive work (without getting into security implications), and, like Bitcoin, the primary bottlenck is still networking.  

I am not referring to PoW in these examples, I was referring to full nodes which are dealing with the primary bottleneck of networking.

At the cost of sacrificing decentralization.  This is just trying to find a happy place between Bitcoin and Visa.  Yet, it is clear that they acknowledge, that the primary issue is networking.  

We agree on the primary point.  So, let's apply that to the discussions on this thread.  

Does XT solve the primary scalability issue facing Bitcoin today... networking load and latency?

Right Exactly!

the block size debate is kinda besides the point, block should be as big as they need too, period the end. and we should be focused on solving this core issue.

the scalability debate should be more about,figuring out what the "max load"  or "min requirements" we expect from full node users ( 15MBPS + reasonable computer?? ) and reducing the load to accommodate as much traffic as possible.

The min requirement is simple: being able to run a node over an anonymous low-bandwidth connection

I’d ignore mundane expenses like hardware and power. Instead, recall that, if a full node cannot be run anonymously, “the network” (full node entry) is effectively controlled by law enforcement, a central entity. Therefore, my view is that the current largest “cost” (and current bottleneck to Bitcoin scalability) is therefore the threat of persecution.

By low bandwidth you mean a 56K external modem? You never answered my questions about how do you plan to make the protocol measure the "cost" of running a node btw.

he wants full node to run behind TOR which is retardedly slow, he's bonkers.

go make a shit coin brg444, we want to make a really good digital currency not enable childporn.

They are making it already. Those who promote and keep running a small block implementation will get that shit coin. There is a consensus among the small blockers to get that coin. Some of those hard core small blockers will believe to hold the valid coin even when the price will be zero or less:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhRUe-gz690

[Trent Russell]

By the way, I am still taking 1 BTC bets (subject to deposit in a 2-of-3 escrowed wallet) that the longest proof-of-work chain will contain a block larger than 1 MB by this time next year.  

And still with a high degree of vaugeness about what is meant by 'the longest proof-of-work chain' I see.

I will say that in my mind, a change in protocol which is not agreed to by ALL of the currently active core contributors is not valid and it does not matter if it is long enough to reach from Earth to the edge of the solar system.

Btw if peter would be more serious about this, i'd take the bet.

I am quite serious.  If the longest chain contains a block greater than 1 MB by this time next year I win, otherwise you win.  The longest chain is defined as the chain built on top of the Satoshi genesis block with the greatest cumulative difficulty.  If Bitcoin forks, then I only win if the "large block" fork has a greater cumulative difficulty than the "small block" fork.

As for escrow, I am open to suggestions.  Danny Hamilton and Jonald Fyookball come to mind.  We would each deposit 1 BTC into a 2-of-3 multisig address and the escrow would hold the third key.  

Suppose there is more than one chain building on top of the Satoshi genesis block and that the one with the greatest cumulative difficulty does contain a block greater than 1 MB. It's clear you (Peter R) "win." But does that mean you get the 2BTC on every still-active chain? Or only on the one with the greatest cumulative difficulty? That outcome isn't clearly specified by what you're writing.

1BTC is too rich for me, but I could put up 0.5 BTC with the following agreement: This time next year (let's say October 1, 2016) Peter R gets the 1 BTC on every active chain that includes the multisig bet output which contains a block greater than 1 MB. I get the 1 BTC on every other active chain that contains the multisig bet output. "Active chain" means that there were at least 20 consecutive blocks mined on the chain on October 1, 2016.

[RoadTrain]

By the way, I am still taking 1 BTC bets (subject to deposit in a 2-of-3 escrowed wallet) that the longest proof-of-work chain will contain a block larger than 1 MB by this time next year.  

And still with a high degree of vaugeness about what is meant by 'the longest proof-of-work chain' I see.

I will say that in my mind, a change in protocol which is not agreed to by ALL of the currently active core contributors is not valid and it does not matter if it is long enough to reach from Earth to the edge of the solar system.

Btw if peter would be more serious about this, i'd take the bet.

I am quite serious.  If the longest chain contains a block greater than 1 MB by this time next year I win, otherwise you win.  The longest chain is defined as the chain built on top of the Satoshi genesis block with the greatest cumulative difficulty.  If Bitcoin forks, then I only win if the "large block" fork has a greater cumulative difficulty than the "small block" fork.

As for escrow, I am open to suggestions.  Danny Hamilton and Jonald Fyookball come to mind.  We would each deposit 1 BTC into a 2-of-3 multisig address and the escrow would hold the third key.  

Suppose there is more than one chain building on top of the Satoshi genesis block and that the one with the greatest cumulative difficulty does contain a block greater than 1 MB. It's clear you (Peter R) "win." But does that mean you get the 2BTC on every still-active chain? Or only on the one with the greatest cumulative difficulty? That outcome isn't clearly specified by what you're writing.

1BTC is too rich for me, but I could put up 0.5 BTC with the following agreement: This time next year (let's say October 1, 2016) Peter R gets the 1 BTC on every active chain that includes the multisig bet output which contains a block greater than 1 MB. I get the 1 BTC on every other active chain that contains the multisig bet output. "Active chain" means that there were at least 20 consecutive blocks mined on the chain on October 1, 2016.

Unfortunately, there's nothing that can prevent BTC from being spent on any chain, unless the hard-fork makes transactions incompatible between chains.

[jonald_fyookball]

I've shown these diagrams a lot because I think they reveal the essence of the situation.  If the limit remains to the right of Q*, then it doesn't really matter what the limit is because it does not affect the free market dynamics.  However, if the limit falls to the left of Q*, then the pressure due to the deadweight loss will eventually cause a fork to move the limit back to the right of Q*!  

TL/DR: There is no way to stop Bitcoin from growing.  

Your idealized considerations of spherical blockchains are suitable for academic and altcoin architecture consideration, but serve no positive purpose in the practical matter of Bitcoin's max_block debate.

What you misleadingly mislabel as "deadweight loss" due to a "Political measure" are actually the beneficial artifacts (including anti-spam/DoS externality regulation) of Bitcoin's incentives for creation of fee markets (and the efficiency|antifragility thus accrued).

I'm sure you disagree, so, to avoid a stalemate due to differing opinions, let's appeal to expertise...

You show those diagrams a lot, because you "think they reveal the essence of the situation."

I'm glad you think the "essence" of Bitcoin's Grand Schism can be revealed by a Powerpoint slide or two.

And I'm glad you were able to expose your precious slides to an attentive audience at the first #ScalingBitcoin workshop.

Now, let us consider how many of the experts at that workshop were persuaded by your putative Domination Slide.

Hmm, I can't think of any.  101/XT's slide into oblivion was not paused or halted, and instead accelerated, in the wake of that conference.

ok soooo....

You're using a tautological argument to claim that Peter's fee market theory is wrong because the dead weight is really being used to create a fee market 
...and then topping that off with an unabashed appeal to authority.

Good one.

[hdbuck]

my g0d these guys are restless!

[Peter R]

Your idealized considerations of spherical blockchains are suitable for academic and altcoin architecture consideration, but serve no positive purpose in the practical matter of Bitcoin's max_block debate...

ok soooo....

You're using a tautological argument to claim that Peter's fee market theory is wrong because the dead weight is really being used to create a fee market  
...and then topping that off with an unabashed appeal to authority.

Good one.

Many people from the thread linked below (myself included) seem to think that it is clear that a block size limit cannot be used to increase the fees; they think that either the protocol would fork or that the demand would spill into competing coins, etc.  

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-40#post-1276

We should be able to test this empirically: if the theory is true, then, for example, we should never have a sustained period in the future where the total fees collected by miners is significantly greater than the aggregate losses due to orphaning.  

  

[VeritasSapere]

of course let's not sure make sure that Bitcoin is resilient to attacks from totalitarian governments and handicapped internet grids in war-torn countries and other areas of geo-political instabilities. because fuck these people right, they can't have Bitcoin, just too bad they weren't born in cozy north america  

much rather design it to work only in the la-la land of infinite growth where progress never stops and government are perfectly fine with Bitcoin challenging their monetary sovereignty

have you guys ever opened an history book? do you not see the debacle unfolding before your very eyes on the international scene? do you really imagine that the next decade is going to be some kind of rosy economic prosperity where citizens of the world and their government hold hands and sing kumbaya!?

In terms of resistance against government persecution there are different ways to look at it, I think that adoption is important because of how it relates to decentralization and security. If more people adopt Bitcoin it would by extension lead to more people running full nodes. It would also make Bitcoin more secure from suppression or persecution from governments or other entities. Since the more people that use Bitcoin the more difficult it will become to attack. In the history of file sharing for example, it was in part because of the shear number of people using it that prevented effective persecution, not because of anonymising technologies. More users and uses for Bitcoin gives Bitcoin more value, and therefore by extension more security because of the increased incentive for mining.

So you anticipate that if Bitcoin starts to get traction and take food out of the mouths of the mainstream financial system beneficiaries (financial system corporate, govt, etc) they are going to say: 'Drat!  Those darned geeky hodlers won and there is nothing we can do about it because Freedom.'

Or are you believing that there will be such a world-wide groundswell of support for Bitcoiners that citizens will take up arms against the persecutors and overthrow the evil govts on our behalf?

Are you a fucking idiot?  Or just completely out-of-touch with reality?

I say as I always have that Bitcoin is at it's core a guerrilla currency and we should not slack off on protecting it through it's potential strengths as such.  If I were on the other side of the fence and worried about it (as I would be), I would have taken pains to lull the community into complacency and detract from developments which would strengthen it against attack until a good opportunity to drop the hammer came.  That opportunity would likely come with unrelated opportunities to tighten up on the internet generally as it wormed it's way into a position where it provides a bit more of certain kinds of freedoms than are desirable (thanks in no small part to the cypherpunks.)

I was not saying that at all, and I think there are multiple possible scenarios for what could happen in the future which depend on different variables, social, geopolitical, economical etc. I was just saying that adoption is an important factor for security and decentralization. I do not think that we need to take up arms to defend Bitcoin, I have never said that. The revolution that Bitcoin brings is a peaceful one. If more people are using Bitcoin it will be more difficult for governments to persecute people politically, furthermore to effectively stop Bitcoin they would need to either shut down or completely control the internet or be able to enforce policy in every jurisdiction in world. Since it only takes one jurisdiction to be free for pools to be setup so that miners all over the world can anonymously point their hashing power towards these pools to strengthen Bitcoin, Bitcoin is not as vulnerable as you might think, Bitcoin is anti fragile.

[CIYAM]

It seems to me the entire block size debate is a bit like this:

Alice: "The sky is falling down because I can't buy my morning coffee with Bitcoin!"

Bob: "Oh - so you are paid in Bitcoin then or you just happen to have a big stash of Bitcoin?"

Alice: "Hmm... well actually just some cents for spamming this forum mostly."

Bob: "So how many coffees would you expect to buy with Bitcoin then?"

Alice: "At least one per year."

How many people in the world are being paid wages in BTC at the moment?

So the importance of being able to buy your morning coffee with BTC is for exactly what reason?

You need to pay people in BTC before they can buy coffees with them. If every website accepted payments in LTC do you think suddenly everyone is going to adopt LTC (or any other alt)?

I find that most websites accept payments in PayPal - but guess what - I don't use PayPal (so adding another payment option won't result in that payment option being used just because it exists).

It is putting "the cart before the horse" to even worry about this. If Bitcoin can't even make a "dent" in the remittance market then the dreams of buying coffees with it are really just ridiculous (and so far it appears that Bitcoin hasn't even made a "dent" in the remittance market).

The "low hanging fruit" that Bitcoin should be gobbling up is the remittance market and other banking settlement transfers.