question

[Carlton Banks]

• Have devastating effects on the fee market

Since there's more space in each block, this space is now less valuable, fees might not be zero, but they'll be lead down to the minimum and competitiveness for fast transactions will be dead.

I don't know how it would change the fee market.. There hasn't been any scarcity in blocks before so fees would probably stay quite similar to what they are today. If adoption continues to increase, the total of collected fees will be higher as there would be more transactions per block.

Wrong. Some scarcity in blocks, and some disparity in the fees paid is essential to maintain a healthy economic relationship between the miners and the users. More tx volume just recreates today's dynamics on a larger scale. As the block reward subsidy diminishes, the extent to which that subsidy was distorting the fee market will become increasingly more apparent. When the block reward approaches zero, having a functional fee market in place is the only way of incentivising miners to mine at all.

Treating fees as "one-fee-fits-all" doesn't take account of the economic reality. Some transactions must confirm ASAP, for a wide variety of reasons. Others can be afforded hours, days or perhaps even longer than that.

Funnily enough, that's why no one is saying let's get rid of the cap entirely.  No one's saying let's have 10GB blocks tomorrow.  Everyone who isn't a perma-1MBer knows that the limit needs to be raised, but everyone seems to have a different idea on how much of an increase is safe.  I honestly don't see 8MB as a threat to decentralisation.  I don't see how anyone could.  I'm not entirely convinced about the doubling part being needed yet, but we don't necessarily have to allow the doubling to happen.  It can be prevented with a soft fork if it isn't needed.  All things considered, BIP101 isn't the catastrophe some make it out to be.  It certainly doesn't guarantee a future of 8GB blocks and half a dozen nodes running the whole network, no one in their right mind would allow it to come to that.  

Some do advocate for an infinite limit, but they're in the same category as the 1MB'ers IMO (i.e. not credible insignificant minority). 8MB/BIP101 won't cause heinous problems tomorrow, but it's the progression of that schedule that will really cause issues (as you concede).

Looking in the Bitcoin github, there's an effort under way to develop a specific test harness for the testnet network, in order to simulate these various schemes and schedules on an actual network. It will be interesting to see the results once that effort is ready to conduct the tests.

But if the miners aren't showing much support for BIP101, I'll go along with that.  Their preference seems to be BIP100 at the moment, but there are justified concerns that they could choose to enforce a 1MB limit forever if that's what they deemed most profitable for them.  What would be beneficial to the network as a whole isn't taken into consideration at all and it involves placing trust in an entity to set a variable which dictates how the network is run.  I would feel much more comfortable if this was done algorithmically, like just about everything else in Bitcoin.

That's similar to my position also. I support an algorithmically determined blocksize limit, but sadly we don't have any complete proposals yet. Greg Maxwell and Mark Friedenbach have their FlexCap scheme floated, upal's Dynamic Resizing concept is out there, and I think Meni Rosenfelds's idea has been a little neglected (he tabled it early on in the debate, so it's understandable).

The problem is that the code for these proposals doesn't exist yet. But it will emerge, the FlexCap idea will almost certainly receive a coded implementation.

More than ever, I'm convinced that the answer lies somewhere between BIP100 and upal's BIP1xx.  A balance between the two is absolutely 100% reasonable and the only people who would still take issue with it would be the ones who think Bitcoin's sole purpose is to benefit a small minority of ultralibertarian crackpots.

That sounds like a sensible position (although I don't understand the political allusion, libertarianism doesn't contain any economic or computer science theory, those being the disciplines that pertian to the blocksize debate).

[1714965346]

1714965346

[1714965346]

1714965346

[1714965346]

1714965346

[1714965346]

1714965346

[DooMAD]

More than ever, I'm convinced that the answer lies somewhere between BIP100 and upal's BIP1xx.  A balance between the two is absolutely 100% reasonable and the only people who would still take issue with it would be the ones who think Bitcoin's sole purpose is to benefit a small minority of ultralibertarian crackpots.

That sounds like a sensible position (although I don't understand the political allusion, libertarianism doesn't contain any economic or computer science theory, those being the disciplines that pertian to the blocksize debate).

Based on what they've been saying, it seems to be the root source of their stance.  They have concerns about government control over money and see Bitcoin as a useful tool in counteracting it.  I can empathise with that.  I certainly can't argue they're wrong to think in that way.  Bitcoin is incredibly useful in that regard.  But where I draw the line is when they decide to get greedy and try to steer us down a path where this benefit would be limited to the early adopters and everyone else should be forced out.  Some are clearly more honest than others when this intent is raised and questioned, but it seems to be the prevailing cause of contention.  Half the drama we've seen in the forum lately would never have occurred if a small but noisy minority weren't pushing for that goal by any means necessary.

[Carlton Banks]

More than ever, I'm convinced that the answer lies somewhere between BIP100 and upal's BIP1xx.  A balance between the two is absolutely 100% reasonable and the only people who would still take issue with it would be the ones who think Bitcoin's sole purpose is to benefit a small minority of ultralibertarian crackpots.

That sounds like a sensible position (although I don't understand the political allusion, libertarianism doesn't contain any economic or computer science theory, those being the disciplines that pertian to the blocksize debate).

Based on what they've been saying, it seems to be the root source of their stance.  They have concerns about government control over money and see Bitcoin as a useful tool in counteracting it.  I can empathise with that.  I certainly can't argue they're wrong to think in that way.  Bitcoin is incredibly useful in that regard.

Likewise. I'm not a self-identifying libertarian, but like you, I respect the aspects of that ideology that make sense to me. Some libertarians fetishise the doctrine, their arguments about abortion and punishing crime are amongst them IMO.

But where I draw the line is when they decide to get greedy and try to steer us down a path where this benefit would be limited to the early adopters and everyone else should be forced out.  Some are clearly more honest than others when this intent is raised and questioned, but it seems to be the prevailing cause of contention.  Half the drama we've seen in the forum lately would never have occurred if a small but noisy minority weren't pushing for that goal by any means necessary.

I've heard people levelling that accusation, but I have yet to see anyone explicitly advocating for making Bitcoin any kind of exclusive club, and it feels like I've seen at read it all (although that's just a feeling, probably not the case). Demonstrate that such a contingent exists, and I would take that line of argument more seriously.

[turvarya]

• Have devastating effects on the fee market

Since there's more space in each block, this space is now less valuable, fees might not be zero, but they'll be lead down to the minimum and competitiveness for fast transactions will be dead.

I don't know how it would change the fee market.. There hasn't been any scarcity in blocks before so fees would probably stay quite similar to what they are today. If adoption continues to increase, the total of collected fees will be higher as there would be more transactions per block.

Wrong. Some scarcity in blocks, and some disparity in the fees paid is essential to maintain a healthy economic relationship between the miners and the users. More tx volume just recreates today's dynamics on a larger scale. As the block reward subsidy diminishes, the extent to which that subsidy was distorting the fee market will become increasingly more apparent. When the block reward approaches zero, having a functional fee market in place is the only way of incentivising miners to mine at all.

You are describing a theoretical construct, while uxgpf describes (current) reality. So, it's pretty arrogant to tell him, that he is wrong.
You state a theory as a fact, so you don't have to describe what your theory is based on. It at least doesn't seem to be based on current events.

[Carlton Banks]

• Have devastating effects on the fee market

Since there's more space in each block, this space is now less valuable, fees might not be zero, but they'll be lead down to the minimum and competitiveness for fast transactions will be dead.

I don't know how it would change the fee market.. There hasn't been any scarcity in blocks before so fees would probably stay quite similar to what they are today. If adoption continues to increase, the total of collected fees will be higher as there would be more transactions per block.

Wrong. Some scarcity in blocks, and some disparity in the fees paid is essential to maintain a healthy economic relationship between the miners and the users. More tx volume just recreates today's dynamics on a larger scale. As the block reward subsidy diminishes, the extent to which that subsidy was distorting the fee market will become increasingly more apparent. When the block reward approaches zero, having a functional fee market in place is the only way of incentivising miners to mine at all.

You are describing a theoretical construct, while uxgpf describes (current) reality. So, it's pretty arrogant to tell him, that he is wrong.
You state a theory as a fact, so you don't have to describe what your theory is based on. It at least doesn't seem to be based on current events.

Unfortunately, you're wrong too. uxgpf is describing future projections also. All his statements are predicated with logical conjunctives like "if", "will be" and "would be". And he doesn't state what his projections are based on either (I would say that for us both we are using a combination of economic and systems theory)

[knight22]

• Have devastating effects on the fee market

Since there's more space in each block, this space is now less valuable, fees might not be zero, but they'll be lead down to the minimum and competitiveness for fast transactions will be dead.

I don't know how it would change the fee market.. There hasn't been any scarcity in blocks before so fees would probably stay quite similar to what they are today. If adoption continues to increase, the total of collected fees will be higher as there would be more transactions per block.

Wrong. Some scarcity in blocks, and some disparity in the fees paid is essential to maintain a healthy economic relationship between the miners and the users. More tx volume just recreates today's dynamics on a larger scale. As the block reward subsidy diminishes, the extent to which that subsidy was distorting the fee market will become increasingly more apparent. When the block reward approaches zero, having a functional fee market in place is the only way of incentivising miners to mine at all.

You are describing a theoretical construct, while uxgpf describes (current) reality. So, it's pretty arrogant to tell him, that he is wrong.
You state a theory as a fact, so you don't have to describe what your theory is based on. It at least doesn't seem to be based on current events.

Unfortunately, you're wrong too. uxgpf is describing future projections also. All his statements are predicated with logical conjunctives like "if", "will be" and "would be". And he doesn't state what his projections are based on either (I would say that for us both we are using a combination of economic and systems theory)

It's pretty obvious that his projections are based on actual observations while yours are based on nothing tangible but doubtful suppositions.

[turvarya]

• Have devastating effects on the fee market

Since there's more space in each block, this space is now less valuable, fees might not be zero, but they'll be lead down to the minimum and competitiveness for fast transactions will be dead.

I don't know how it would change the fee market.. There hasn't been any scarcity in blocks before so fees would probably stay quite similar to what they are today. If adoption continues to increase, the total of collected fees will be higher as there would be more transactions per block.

Wrong. Some scarcity in blocks, and some disparity in the fees paid is essential to maintain a healthy economic relationship between the miners and the users. More tx volume just recreates today's dynamics on a larger scale. As the block reward subsidy diminishes, the extent to which that subsidy was distorting the fee market will become increasingly more apparent. When the block reward approaches zero, having a functional fee market in place is the only way of incentivising miners to mine at all.

You are describing a theoretical construct, while uxgpf describes (current) reality. So, it's pretty arrogant to tell him, that he is wrong.
You state a theory as a fact, so you don't have to describe what your theory is based on. It at least doesn't seem to be based on current events.

Unfortunately, you're wrong too. uxgpf is describing future projections also. All his statements are predicated with logical conjunctives like "if", "will be" and "would be". And he doesn't state what his projections are based on either (I would say that for us both we are using a combination of economic and systems theory)

His prediction is based on the past and present. I know, that this is not an optimum, but it is still better, than what you have presented so far.
I just don't get, why anybody would think that fees would go down, when blocksize increase(besides "supply and demand" which is an oversimplification of how economies work)

[Carlton Banks]

You are describing a theoretical construct, while uxgpf describes (current) reality. So, it's pretty arrogant to tell him, that he is wrong.
You state a theory as a fact, so you don't have to describe what your theory is based on. It at least doesn't seem to be based on current events.

Unfortunately, you're wrong too. uxgpf is describing future projections also. All his statements are predicated with logical conjunctives like "if", "will be" and "would be". And he doesn't state what his projections are based on either (I would say that for us both we are using a combination of economic and systems theory)

His prediction is based on the past and present. I know, that this is not an optimum, but it is still better, than what you have presented so far.
I just don't get, why anybody would think that fees would go down, when blocksize increase(besides "supply and demand" which is an oversimplification of how economies work)

Well, you'll find that not everyone has the patience to wait for it to click for you, but suffice it to say: increasing the block size too much will cause fees to collapse. The author of the BIP I am opposing will tell you the same thing.

In addition, simply saying something doesn't make it true, no matter how many times you repeat it. My analysis is also based on observations made both in the past and the present; I haven't once claimed to observe events in the future (or implied it). It'd be an impressive feat if it was possible though lol

[turvarya]

increasing the block size too much will cause fees to collapse. The author of the BIP I am opposing will tell you the same thing.

You still haven't answered me why. All you do is dodging my question and writing comments without any content.

So, this quote also applies to you:

In addition, simply saying something doesn't make it true, no matter how many times you repeat it.

[Carlton Banks]

increasing the block size too much will cause fees to collapse. The author of the BIP I am opposing will tell you the same thing.

You still haven't answered me why. All you do is dodging my question and writing comments without any content.

So, this quote also applies to you:

In addition, simply saying something doesn't make it true, no matter how many times you repeat it.

It's explained perfectly adequately a short distance back in this thread. I'm not going to do it again just so you can feel like people value your audience.

[turvarya]

increasing the block size too much will cause fees to collapse. The author of the BIP I am opposing will tell you the same thing.

You still haven't answered me why. All you do is dodging my question and writing comments without any content.

So, this quote also applies to you:

In addition, simply saying something doesn't make it true, no matter how many times you repeat it.

It's explained perfectly adequately a short distance back in this thread. I'm not going to do it again just so you can feel like people value your audience.

So, I read all your posts in this thread again and you didn't give anything besides a pretty vague theoretical construct, that isn't based on anything(the very point where I entered the discussion).
So, I accept, that you are like many other people in here are just not willing to give answer, more likely use ad hominem or trying to look smart by starting some stupid meta discussion without link to the actual topic  and that further discussion is pretty much pointless.

[spazzdla]

If you lose the miners your pretty coins go by bye.

[knight22]

If you lose the miners your pretty coins go by bye.

Miners will go where the money is. In other words, which coin market makers will choose.

[hdbuck]

If you lose the miners your pretty coins go by bye.

Miners will go where the money is. In other words, which coin market makers will choose.

ahhh so who's the market makers again? WE ARE

so dont mind this ph0rk, it wont happen. and if big centralized miners tries.. they'll loose huge money.

[Carlton Banks]

increasing the block size too much will cause fees to collapse. The author of the BIP I am opposing will tell you the same thing.

You still haven't answered me why. All you do is dodging my question and writing comments without any content.

So, this quote also applies to you:

In addition, simply saying something doesn't make it true, no matter how many times you repeat it.

It's explained perfectly adequately a short distance back in this thread. I'm not going to do it again just so you can feel like people value your audience.

So, I read all your posts in this thread again and you didn't give anything besides a pretty vague theoretical construct, that isn't based on anything(the very point where I entered the discussion).
So, I accept, that you are like many other people in here are just not willing to give answer, more likely use ad hominem or trying to look smart by starting some stupid meta discussion without link to the actual topic  and that further discussion is pretty much pointless.

So your meta-meta argument, littered with inaccuracies and ad hominems, demonstrates you inhabiting the high ground?  

Like I said: Andresen accepts that view. He designed BIP101. You should complain to him, ruining everyone's perception of BIP101, how could he? 

[knight22]

If you lose the miners your pretty coins go by bye.

Miners will go where the money is. In other words, which coin market makers will choose.

ahhh so who's the market makers again? WE ARE

so dont mind this ph0rk, it wont happen. and if big centralized miners tries.. they'll loose huge money.

The delusion here is strong 

Who is "we"? This tinny community? Big pockets doesn't give a damn about you and I opinion. Bitcoin has gone beyond bitcointalk. Reality check.

[Carlton Banks]

If you lose the miners your pretty coins go by bye.

Miners will go where the money is. In other words, which coin market makers will choose.

ahhh so who's the market makers again? WE ARE

so dont mind this ph0rk, it wont happen. and if big centralized miners tries.. they'll loose huge money.

The delusion here is strong  

Who is "we"? This tinny community? Big pockets doesn't give a damn about you and I opinion. Bitcoin has gone beyond bitcointalk. Reality check.

And you continue to post here for what reason? You're admitting you're not a part of this community as well as your contempt for it, please leave.

[knight22]

If you lose the miners your pretty coins go by bye.

Miners will go where the money is. In other words, which coin market makers will choose.

ahhh so who's the market makers again? WE ARE

so dont mind this ph0rk, it wont happen. and if big centralized miners tries.. they'll loose huge money.

The delusion here is strong  

Who is "we"? This tinny community? Big pockets doesn't give a damn about you and I opinion. Bitcoin has gone beyond bitcointalk. Reality check.

And you continue to post here for what reason? You're admitting you're not a part of this community as well as your contempt for it, please leave.

If I leave, will it adds up to your feeling of "control?". Like it or not bitcoin is at the edge of a new power structure driven by market forces leaving this community behind, just as intended by Satoshi. Those with big pockets, which their job is to move capitals to make things happen, will get want they want and right now what they want is bigger blocks (Also as intended from the start) because big blocks = big bucks. It won't change any single thing about the principles which bitcoin is being built on nor its decentralization. No matter the outcome, bitcoin will fork and even if you dislike the fork, even if you call it gavincoin or "whatever implementation altcoin" the people on the street will call it bitcoin because it will be packaged and marketeer as such. Why I'm still here even if I can't control anything? Simply because as an observer I still enjoying talking about it and watching it unfold.  

[Carlton Banks]

Seek help. I am feeling increasingly sorry for you people, doing this must be no fun at all. How you got roped in, I do not know, but you all have my sympathies.

[RGBKey]

Honestly I'm not sure how you plan on changing this unless you run a large pool. The miners decide what chain they use and ultimately how that stuff works.