Jeff Garzik chose BIP100 block size voting because Blockstream recommended it

[ArticMine]

...
Perhaps not. But I'd say it is quite naive to think that technological advancements will continue to exponentially grow to infinity, as many seem to believe around here. In fact, Moore's Law seems to be unraveling as we speak. Just ask Intel what just happened to their tick-tock model.....

So the solution is to hard code into the protocol no technological change? Or to only allow those who have a vested interest against the technological change to approve it, such as the "red flag laws" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_flag_traffic_laws in the 19th century? That is what is really naive.

[1714009026]

1714009026

[1714009026]

1714009026

[1714009026]

1714009026

[1714009026]

1714009026

[gmaxwell]

A misunderstanding can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.


Here is the response I wrote on reddit:

Limitation of the twitter medium I assume there. I don't know why he's invoking "blockstream" there.

I asked Jeff on IRC what specifically the 75% that was in his document meant:

13:44 <gmaxwell> Technical question, it's unclear to the writeup how exactly you suggest miners signal their new size preference?  are you thinking that mine
rs express a preferred size in their blocks, and then the 75-th percentile size is used? (subject to the 2x limit) ?
 
...

13:50 <gmaxwell> What made you go for 75%?

...

13:52 <jgarzik> 75% = political science.  3/4 majority.

...

14:09 <gmaxwell> as far as the actual mechenism (which I don't see in the BIP); what I'd guess is that each block would express a preferred limit in the coinbase, next to the height,  and then at the update period those limits would get processed? e.g. taking the n-th percentile?  

14:10 <gmaxwell> (if that detail is in the bip, I'm missing it)  

...

14:14 <jgarzik> Anyway, on the BIP 100, basically the floor (least) of the range of most popular miner suggested sizes  

14:14 <jgarzik> "we all agree on this floor"  

14:15 <gmaxwell> jgarzik yea, if it took all the sizs, sorted, and then discarded 25% of the smallest ones, then took the smallest remaining size, it would accomplish that.

14:16 <jgarzik> size can decrease too, with 1MB absolute minimum.  

14:16 <gmaxwell> though maybe a number different than 75/25 would be good, I should talk to petertodd and see if his position would be changed if, say, it were 90%/10%.   Basically if you're below 5% hashpower you're not even getting a block per day on average, and so you couldn't even be doing much to prevent censorship.  

14:18 <gmaxwell> But e.g. should be we changing how the limit works slightly, e.g. making the 'size' include the change in the utxo size as I'd proposed before? so that the limit actually reflects the real costs in the network; .. absent something like that fees will never peanlize costly behavior there.

14:18 <jgarzik> nod - IMV tweaking those constants are easy while getting us past the 1MB hard fork

14:18 <jgarzik> & addressing governance are the hard parts

14:19 <jgarzik> agree RE UTXO - economically signaling those costs is important


I believe this is the entirety of my conversion with Jeff on the subject.  (I've removed many interspersed comments because IRC usually bifurcates into multiple threads of discussion due to latency; but I believe they are unrelated to this topic).  AFAICT, I never suggested 20%  but rather suggested a sensible meaning for what a 75% threshold might mean in his scheme, which to my eyes was under-defined but might have already meant that.

I don't think there is anything wrong with 20% as things go; though the main limitation in BIP100 (assuming any of the under-specified parts are filled in with things I find unobjectionable) is that it addresses only miner-vs-miner incentives issues, and even then only under assumptions about hashrate distribution which are currently untrue (e.g. right now less than one percent of the miners have >>50% of the hashrate, so BIP100 is basically a blank check to those few parties up to the 32MB limit).

Jeff's stated view is that users can be protected by exiting Bitcoin if miners are not acting perfectly, but there is incredible friction around markets (e.g. solution via exodus guarantees losers)-- "sell all your bitcoins and go use something else, is a really weak threat, in general. Because of the weakness of the threat I don't think this is a reasonable first-resort mechanism for assuring the security of the system-- I think we've already seen it disproved in practice, and under that argument, e.g. we could just give miners the ability to print infinite bitcoin, steal arbitrary coins, etc.

[gmaxwell]

Perhaps not. But I'd say it is quite naive to think that technological advancements will continue to exponentially grow to infinity, as many seem to believe around here. In fact, Moore's Law seems to be unraveling as we speak. Just ask Intel what just happened to their tick-tock model.....

When I expressed the same concern to Gavin,  his response to me was:

I really, really don't understand this attitude-- I woulda thunk you were old enough to be confident that technology DOES improve. In fits and starts, but over the long term it definitely gets better.

My response was:

I'm confident that technology will improve. But it can improve nicely
but still be _utterly_ blown away by any particular pre-perscribed
growth formula (especially an exponential one). If the limit is some
multiple of what nodes can comfortably handle or real demand on the
network then its more or less equivalent to unlimited; so it doesn't
even have to be off by much.  I'm also experienced enough with large
scale systems to know that massive increases in scale expose new
behaviors and effects that were not visible in other regimes.  So, for
example in 1990 one might have correctly predicted the grown in raw
ALU throughput we've seen, but if you also assumed memory bandwidth
would have kept up you would be massively misplaced (factor of 100x+
off by now), and many problems become more memory bandwidth limited as
they scale.

This is especially a factor when you're talking about improvement of
the, say, 10th percentile rather than the best available technology--
which is very much a consideration.

There are also serious confounding trends. Computers are getting
better but more computing is moving onto battery powered tablet
devices which move backwards a decade in technology and on to cloud
hosted infrastructure which adds little decentralization in to
ecosystem. Sometimes the improvement in technology is rolled into
power, space, and cost savings and doesn't become readily available in
the forum of throughput. Sometimes the improvements show up in
specialized processors which may not be useful to us (e.g. most of the
multiply throughput and memory bandwidth in a high end desktop is in
the GPU right now). It wouldn't be an unreasonable guess that
computing power available at low cost to the general public may
increase slower even if raw technology improvement speeds up because
the improvements are going into other areas, esp. if applications
which need massive increases in local computing power don't
materialize.

[marky89]

...
Perhaps not. But I'd say it is quite naive to think that technological advancements will continue to exponentially grow to infinity, as many seem to believe around here. In fact, Moore's Law seems to be unraveling as we speak. Just ask Intel what just happened to their tick-tock model.....

So the solution is to hard code into the protocol no technological change? Or to only allow those who have a vested interest against the technological change to approve it, such as the "red flag laws" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_flag_traffic_laws in the 19th century? That is what is really naive.

Huh? This is more ridiculous polemics. Just because I am suggesting that Moore's Law (and its application in BIP 101) are unscientific and without basis in reality, that doesn't mean that I prefer "no technological change." This is called a strawman argument, and it's the same strawman that is being repeatedly employed around here against people who support solutions other than BIP 101.

Not supporting BIP 101 =/= not supporting progress, or larger blocks.....

[CounterEntropy]

A misunderstanding can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.

Could you please tell us if this proposal will be added to BIP repository on Github ?

https://github.com/UpalChakraborty/bips/blob/master/BIP-DynamicMaxBlockSize.mediawiki

[marky89]

Perhaps not. But I'd say it is quite naive to think that technological advancements will continue to exponentially grow to infinity, as many seem to believe around here. In fact, Moore's Law seems to be unraveling as we speak. Just ask Intel what just happened to their tick-tock model.....

When I expressed the same concern to Gavin,  his response to me was:

I really, really don't understand this attitude-- I woulda thunk you were old enough to be confident that technology DOES improve. In fits and starts, but over the long term it definitely gets better.

My response was:

I'm confident that technology will improve. But it can improve nicely
but still be _utterly_ blown away by any particular pre-perscribed
growth formula (especially an exponential one). If the limit is some
multiple of what nodes can comfortably handle or real demand on the
network then its more or less equivalent to unlimited; so it doesn't
even have to be off by much.  I'm also experienced enough with large
scale systems to know that massive increases in scale expose new
behaviors and effects that were not visible in other regimes.  So, for
example in 1990 one might have correctly predicted the grown in raw
ALU throughput we've seen, but if you also assumed memory bandwidth
would have kept up you would be massively misplaced (factor of 100x+
off by now), and many problems become more memory bandwidth limited as
they scale.

This is especially a factor when you're talking about improvement of
the, say, 10th percentile rather than the best available technology--
which is very much a consideration.

There are also serious confounding trends. Computers are getting
better but more computing is moving onto battery powered tablet
devices which move backwards a decade in technology and on to cloud
hosted infrastructure which adds little decentralization in to
ecosystem. Sometimes the improvement in technology is rolled into
power, space, and cost savings and doesn't become readily available in
the forum of throughput. Sometimes the improvements show up in
specialized processors which may not be useful to us (e.g. most of the
multiply throughput and memory bandwidth in a high end desktop is in
the GPU right now). It wouldn't be an unreasonable guess that
computing power available at low cost to the general public may
increase slower even if raw technology improvement speeds up because
the improvements are going into other areas, esp. if applications
which need massive increases in local computing power don't
materialize.

Agreed, thanks for your thoughts. The bolded is what I keep coming back to over and over while watching this debate unfold. The idea that we "have it all figured out".... that we have all the technical foresight to plan for all contingencies when scaling capacity up 8000x -- this just seems so irrational and audacious to me. I have no doubt that technology will improve -- the questions are, in what capacity (nods to comment on power, space, and cost savings vs. throughput)? and when does growth taper off? We simply cannot know these answers in the present.

We all want bitcoin to see increased adoption, but that's completely irrelevant to actual growth in transaction volume and therefore actual capacity needs. Why not use real transaction data to determine said needs, rather than something so unreliable and unproven as Moore's Law?

[ArticMine]

...
Perhaps not. But I'd say it is quite naive to think that technological advancements will continue to exponentially grow to infinity, as many seem to believe around here. In fact, Moore's Law seems to be unraveling as we speak. Just ask Intel what just happened to their tick-tock model.....

So the solution is to hard code into the protocol no technological change? Or to only allow those who have a vested interest against the technological change to approve it, such as the "red flag laws" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_flag_traffic_laws in the 19th century? That is what is really naive.

Huh? This is more ridiculous polemics. Just because I am suggesting that Moore's Law (and its application in BIP 101) are unscientific and without basis in reality, that doesn't mean that I prefer "no technological change." This is called a strawman argument, and it's the same strawman that is being repeatedly employed around here against people who support solutions other than BIP 101.

Not supporting BIP 101 =/= not supporting progress, or larger blocks.....

Actually I also do not support BIP 101 because it has a 8GB hard blocksize limit.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

I, for one, welcome any option which allows me to use the strength of Bitcoin as a backing yet not spam the blockchain with my inconsequential activity.  99.99% of my activity simply does not need the extreme security offered (currently) by being a perminent fixture in the native Bitcoin blockchain.

[johnyj]

This is maybe the 7th time I read that side chain white paper, and I'm still not convinced that complex idea can be accepted by anyone except gmaxwell himself 

[Gleb Gamow]

Well, the cat is out of the bag:

https://twitter.com/jgarzik/status/637273041530044416



Damn you Blockstream! I am sick of this company trying to influence Core development.

https://blockstream.com/team/

[QuestionAuthority]

...
Perhaps not. But I'd say it is quite naive to think that technological advancements will continue to exponentially grow to infinity, as many seem to believe around here. In fact, Moore's Law seems to be unraveling as we speak. Just ask Intel what just happened to their tick-tock model.....

So the solution is to hard code into the protocol no technological change? Or to only allow those who have a vested interest against the technological change to approve it, such as the "red flag laws" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_flag_traffic_laws in the 19th century? That is what is really naive.

Huh? This is more ridiculous polemics. Just because I am suggesting that Moore's Law (and its application in BIP 101) are unscientific and without basis in reality, that doesn't mean that I prefer "no technological change." This is called a strawman argument, and it's the same strawman that is being repeatedly employed around here against people who support solutions other than BIP 101.

Not supporting BIP 101 =/= not supporting progress, or larger blocks.....

Actually I also do not support BIP 101 because it has a 8GB hard blocksize limit.

Dat no good. Everyone know 8 very very rucky number in China.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

...
Perhaps not. But I'd say it is quite naive to think that technological advancements will continue to exponentially grow to infinity, as many seem to believe around here. In fact, Moore's Law seems to be unraveling as we speak. Just ask Intel what just happened to their tick-tock model.....

So the solution is to hard code into the protocol no technological change? Or to only allow those who have a vested interest against the technological change to approve it, such as the "red flag laws" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_flag_traffic_laws in the 19th century? That is what is really naive.

Huh? This is more ridiculous polemics. Just because I am suggesting that Moore's Law (and its application in BIP 101) are unscientific and without basis in reality, that doesn't mean that I prefer "no technological change." This is called a strawman argument, and it's the same strawman that is being repeatedly employed around here against people who support solutions other than BIP 101.

Not supporting BIP 101 =/= not supporting progress, or larger blocks.....

Actually I also do not support BIP 101 because it has a 8GB hard blocksize limit.

Dat no good. Everyone know 8 very very rucky number in China.

Good man, I was thinking that casual racism was the one thing missing from this debate.  Thanks for stepping out of your trailer and contributing!! 

[glub0x]

To understand the financial incentives that Blockstream has here and the corresponding conflict of interest it is very important to see the video and review the technical paper on the Bitcoin Lightning Network

Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zVzw912wPo
Technical Paper: https://lightning.network/lightning-network-paper.pdf

Now there is a legitimate and valuable use for the Bitcoin Lightning Network technology such providing security to Bitcoin exchanges for example, but it is not a replacement for on chain Bitcoin transactions.  

Yep the sidechain white paper is interesting too if you read between the lines.

This company makes me sick. If you think of the equivalent behavior in real world
" hey dude we are the congress, we vote the war, let's team up congressman, sell missile and have the us army throw them ==>$$$$"

[QuestionAuthority]

...
Perhaps not. But I'd say it is quite naive to think that technological advancements will continue to exponentially grow to infinity, as many seem to believe around here. In fact, Moore's Law seems to be unraveling as we speak. Just ask Intel what just happened to their tick-tock model.....

So the solution is to hard code into the protocol no technological change? Or to only allow those who have a vested interest against the technological change to approve it, such as the "red flag laws" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_flag_traffic_laws in the 19th century? That is what is really naive.

Huh? This is more ridiculous polemics. Just because I am suggesting that Moore's Law (and its application in BIP 101) are unscientific and without basis in reality, that doesn't mean that I prefer "no technological change." This is called a strawman argument, and it's the same strawman that is being repeatedly employed around here against people who support solutions other than BIP 101.

Not supporting BIP 101 =/= not supporting progress, or larger blocks.....

Actually I also do not support BIP 101 because it has a 8GB hard blocksize limit.

Dat no good. Everyone know 8 very very rucky number in China.

Good man, I was thinking that casual racism was the one thing missing from this debate.  Thanks for stepping out of your trailer and contributing!! 

I'm here for ya bra. lol

[iCEBREAKER]

This company makes me sick.

That's probably just a parasite you got from blowing that camel at the zoo.   

xpost:

Blockstream is scaling Bitcoin in ways far more effective than XT's naive, ham-fisted, derpy 'duh just make the block moar big' approach.

Their Scaling Bitcoin workshops represent the proper way to gather information, share expertise, compare notes, find common ground, identify irreconcilable differences, and ultimately begin to move *with consensus* toward the goal of supporting more transactions, without sacrificing Bitcoin's unique distinguishing features.

Like it or not, at present Dr. Backamoto is effectively Bitcoin's CTO just as gmax is now Bitcoin's Chief Scientist.   

While (former Chief Scientist) Gavin and Hearn are busy splitting the community into mutually-destructive warring factions, Blockstream is doing amazing things at the frontier of computer science and cryptography.

EG, https://blockstream.com/2015/08/24/treesignatures/