Jeff Garzik chose BIP100 block size voting because Blockstream recommended it

[knight22]

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.

[1714852658]

1714852658

[CounterEntropy]

This is really unfortunate. There are other better options around, e.g. https://github.com/UpalChakraborty/bips/blob/master/BIP-DynamicMaxBlockSize.mediawiki, which is completely ignored.

[ArticMine]

This could also explain the 32 MB hard limit in BIP 100.

[LiteCoinGuy]

what do you think could blockstream gain with that move / BIP 100?

also it was "just a" recommendation and jeff is not working for blockstream.


@ArticMine

yes. but more than 1.04 MB in 2020 like someone proposed  

[uvt9]

basically BIP 100 give miners more control while can' even guarantee blocksize increase.

[RocketSingh]

what do you think could blockstream gain with that move / BIP 100?

also it was "just a" recommendation and jeff is not working for blockstream.


@ArticMine

yes. but more than 1.04 MB in 2020 like someone proposed  

They'd most likely try to push BIP 103 in scalingbitcoin. BIP 100 is their last resort to honor the 21m they have taken. That is why they are not allowing any other BIP to come into picture.

[tvbcof]

Well, the cat is out of the bag:

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

https://twitter.com/jgarzik/status/637273041530044416 http://s18.postimg.org/4brkp5jbd/zblockstream.png

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

Ya, just because the makeup of Blockstream includes so many core contributors who are largely responsible for making Bitcoin itself actually work, they think they have some sort of some sort of privilege to 'influence core development.'  The nerve!

[BillyBobZorton]

This is really unfortunate. There are other better options around, e.g. https://github.com/UpalChakraborty/bips/blob/master/BIP-DynamicMaxBlockSize.mediawiki, which is completely ignored.

I like the idea of the dynamic adaptable blocksize but you aren't considering the huge amount of exploits a dynamic blocksize could have. In my opinion that solution would need proper testing before even considering putting it into real world practice.

[ArticMine]

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

The Bitcoin Lightning Network is a way of creating Bitcoin banks where the deposits are cryptographically guaranteed on the Blockchain. This is done by a combination of multi signature and cascading time locked transactions. Blockstream particularly with its close relationship to the Bitcoin core developers would be in a very good position to become one of these banks, provide services to these banks or both. For this to work the transaction fees on the Bitcoin network have to be high and if technology pushes the actual costs drastically down (as has been the historical case) then an artificial scarcity in the form of low Bitcoin blocksize limits is necessary.

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.  

Consider a multinational logging company called Treestream. Their biggest customer makes punched cards. Think on how disruptive a single 4 TB hard drive can be. It actually replaces 1000 warehouses, full of punched cards, such as this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punched_card#/media/File:IBM_card_storage.NARA.jpg. Now does anyone seriously expect Treestream to fund the development of 40 TB SSD drives?

[BillyBobZorton]

I wish we could have VISA and beyond levels of transactions on-chain including micro and picotransactions, but can anyone explain me how this is done while keeping super low fees, while keeping nodes decentralized (size and bandwith being spread worldwide so most countries can run full nodes as a single individual)? How do you do this?
This would be the perfect Bitcoin but a lot of people has questioned this and I never saw an answer that didn't present a compromise.

[tvbcof]

...
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.  
...

Who said they were?  Is there anything about LN which precludes people from using Bitcoin?

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.

[gentlemand]

I wish we could have VISA and beyond levels of transactions on-chain including micro and picotransactions, but can anyone explain me how this is done while keeping super low fees, while keeping nodes decentralized (size and bandwith being spread worldwide so most countries can run full nodes as a single individual)? How do you do this?

Fees is the easy part. Getting anywhere Visa levels and having the tiniest of fees could easily match the current block reward.

Decentralised is the conundrum. Technological limitations and vested interests are likely to upend that unless they're somehow dealt with. Technology may well catch up. Not so sure about the other bit.

[ArticMine]

I wish we could have VISA and beyond levels of transactions on-chain including micro and picotransactions, but can anyone explain me how this is done while keeping super low fees, while keeping nodes decentralized (size and bandwith being spread worldwide so most countries can run full nodes as a single individual)? How do you do this?
This would be the perfect Bitcoin but a lot of people has questioned this and I never saw an answer that didn't present a compromise.

Does anyone seriously believe that the VISA network of today could function using the punched card and tabulating machine technology of the 1940's and 1950s? Yes this is when some of the major Credit Card brands started. This is the first Diner's Club card. http://f.tqn.com/y/history1900s/1/S/Z/J/dinersclub2.JPG. The "perfect" Bitcoin may not be entirely possible today, but given the current rate of technological advancement will be very likely in the very near future. The real issue here is will Bitcoin be the VISA or the Diner's Club of crypto currency?

[ArticMine]

...
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.  
...

Who said they were?  Is there anything about LN which precludes people from using Bitcoin?

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.

Anyone who supports a Bitcoin blocksize protocol that does scale with technological change is saying that LN is a replacement. After all how many governments, let alone individuals, in 1959 could afford to pay for 1000 warehouses full of punched cards? Yet to day many individuals can afford a 4 TB hard drive.

[tvbcof]

Anyone who supports a Bitcoin blocksize protocol that does scale with technological change is saying that LN is a replacement. After all how many governments, let alone individuals, in 1959 could afford to pay for 1000 warehouses full of punched cards? Yet to day many individuals can afford a 4 TB hard drive.

I don't know how many times we have to go through this, but static storage space is simply one element of the transaction rate, and not a very significant one compared to bandwidth and other things.

Casual observers should be warned that anyone who focuses on the _static storage_ aspect of the blockchain is either to ignorant to pay much attention to, or is engaging in blatant propaganda.  Usually it's the latter.

[ArticMine]

Anyone who supports a Bitcoin blocksize protocol that does scale with technological change is saying that LN is a replacement. After all how many governments, let alone individuals, in 1959 could afford to pay for 1000 warehouses full of punched cards? Yet to day many individuals can afford a 4 TB hard drive.

I don't know how many times we have to go through this, but static storage space is simply one element of the transaction rate, and not a very significant one compared to bandwidth and other things.

Casual observers should be warned that anyone who focuses on the _static storage_ aspect of the blockchain is either to ignorant to pay much attention to, or is engaging in blatant propaganda.  Usually it's the latter.

So we wish to compare the cost of sending say 1 MB of data today as an email attachment with the cost of sending an 1 MB telegram in 1959 instead?

Edit: Or how about the cost of downloading 1GB of data from a sever in another part of the world with the cost of sending 1 GB of data over the telegraph network in 1959?

[fryarminer]

Idk. I read the BIP100 paper last night. It is written in a childish way. Things like "bitcoin speed limit" and stuff.

Totally honest here, I don't care for the exponential growth that BIP101 will eventually have, but I still think it's the best idea out there.

[CounterEntropy]

This is really unfortunate. There are other better options around, e.g. https://github.com/UpalChakraborty/bips/blob/master/BIP-DynamicMaxBlockSize.mediawiki, which is completely ignored.

I like the idea of the dynamic adaptable blocksize but you aren't considering the huge amount of exploits a dynamic blocksize could have. In my opinion that solution would need proper testing before even considering putting it into real world practice.

The proposal first need to be assigned a BIP no. and be placed in Github bitcoin repository to have some proper testing by various parties.

[marky89]

Anyone who supports a Bitcoin blocksize protocol that does scale with technological change is saying that LN is a replacement. After all how many governments, let alone individuals, in 1959 could afford to pay for 1000 warehouses full of punched cards? Yet to day many individuals can afford a 4 TB hard drive.

I don't know how many times we have to go through this, but static storage space is simply one element of the transaction rate, and not a very significant one compared to bandwidth and other things.

Casual observers should be warned that anyone who focuses on the _static storage_ aspect of the blockchain is either to ignorant to pay much attention to, or is engaging in blatant propaganda.  Usually it's the latter.

So we wish to compare the cost of sending say 1 MB of data today as an email attachment with the cost of sending an 1 MB telegram in 1959 instead?

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.....

[tvbcof]

So we wish to compare the cost of sending say 1 MB of data today as an email attachment with the cost of sending an 1 MB telegram in 1959 instead?

Edit: Or how about the cost of downloading 1GB of data from a sever in another part of the world with the cost of sending 1 GB of data over the telegraph network in 1959?

I pay $80-ish per month for 15 GB.  I upped my base plan from the $50/month 7.5G that most people get.  1GB is not trivial to me and I am in the technically advanced first-world which is currently 'the land of the free' so to speak.

Perhaps you feel that only people who live in densely populated areas and can achieve cost effective broadband should be able to participate in the network and that will be fine from a security perspective.  Fine.

I actually don't see a big network security benefit by having most broadband users be able to participate.  Any broadband customer can be kicked out of use of the service for any reason.  Working around government mandated filters would be one.  In my instance I don't have very good options if my satellite ISP gave me the boot (or more likely, gave me endless problems, and Indian to tell me to re-boot my router again and again and again, and the continuation of my monthly bill.)