Thoughts from Russia on the block size situation and Blockstream

[Peter R]

we basically agree but I still don't see any reason why it needs to remain "centralized" so for that reason I don't think you've invalidated what Peter R had to say.

Similar to how several people convinced themselves that "bitcoin couldn't scale" (and so now we see such a vicious backlash against increasing the max block size as these people overcome their cognitive dissonance), I think people also convinced themselves that Bitcoin Core would be the permanent core of Bitcoin (and again now they make up reasons for why we need centralized development to keep Bitcoin decentralized).  

It's sort of ironic that the push to increase the block size is what woke the community up to the problem of developer centralization in the first place.  Prior to this debate, people took it for granted that "basically everyone runs Core."  



In response to Brg444: everyone agrees that the consensus rules need to be such that the implementations don't permanently fork.  That's not the debate here.  The debate surrounds the question of why the choice should be dictated by a specific set of developers.  The only argument I've heard is a hand-wavy "well duh it will be chaos otherwise and the various implementations will all fork."  I don't find that convincing.  

[jonald_fyookball]

Elements...yeah...we already knew that.  Well at least he gives a use case.  Still too vague overall.

btw, if you think your snide sarcasm makes you appear more intelligent or respected, let me inform you: it doesn't.

Sorry, that's just how I deal with disingenuous noobs.

have you ever written any related Bitcoin code?

"I don't write code, I write checks" - Jay-Z.... or was it? 

ok, well I have written some Bitcoin code...a few utility scripts in the electrum section of this forum.
Nothing spectacular but since apparently more than you've done, the noob comments are funny.

Have a nice day.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

Elements...yeah...we already knew that.  Well at least he gives a use case.  Still too vague overall.

btw, if you think your snide sarcasm makes you appear more intelligent or respected, let me inform you: it doesn't.

Sorry, that's just how I deal with disingenuous noobs.

have you ever written any related Bitcoin code?

"I don't write code, I write checks" - Jay-Z.... or was it?  

Problem is, your checks are bouncing.   

[brg444]

Elements...yeah...we already knew that.  Well at least he gives a use case.  Still too vague overall.

btw, if you think your snide sarcasm makes you appear more intelligent or respected, let me inform you: it doesn't.

Sorry, that's just how I deal with disingenuous noobs.

have you ever written any related Bitcoin code?

"I don't write code, I write checks" - Jay-Z.... or was it? 

ok, well I have written some Bitcoin code...a few utility scripts in the electrum section of this forum.
Nothing spectacular but since apparently more than you've done, the noob comments are funny.

Have a nice day.

the "iCode" argument

 

[brg444]

we basically agree but I still don't see any reason why it needs to remain "centralized" so for that reason I don't think you've invalidated what Peter R had to say.

Similar to how several people convinced themselves that "bitcoin couldn't scale" (and so now we see such a vicious backlash against increasing the max block size as these people overcome their cognitive dissonance), I think people also convinced themselves that Bitcoin Core would be the permanent core of Bitcoin (and again now they make up reasons for why we need centralized development to keep Bitcoin decentralized).  

It's sort of ironic that the push to increase the block size is what woke the community up to the problem of developer centralization in the first place.  Prior to this debate, people took it for granted that "basically everyone runs Core."  



In response to Brg444: everyone agrees that the consensus rules need to be such that the implementations don't permanently fork.  That's not the debate here.  The debate surrounds the question of why the choice should be dictated by a specific set of developers.  The only argument I've heard is a hand-wavy "well duh it will be chaos otherwise and the various implementations will all fork."  I don't find that convincing.  

So how do you imagine this works? Let me guess... DEMOCRACY!

Everyone pushes their own code to the consensus and may the best one win? Everyone gets to vote somehow?

How do you propose different sets of developers working on their own implementation decide on a consensus code?

[Peter R]

How do you propose different sets of developers working on their own implementation decide on a consensus code?

It would play out as a more efficient version of what's happening between XT and Core today.  Imagine that there are 5 competing implementations, each with between 10 - 30% of the node base.  They all run essentially the same consensus library because everyone knows it's very important to follow the longest chain, although they differ in features.  OK, so a few years down the road the community feels that a change needs to be made: we need bigger blocks!  Multiple proposals are put forward (as they are today), a big debate ensues (as it does today), and then each software implementation picks their favourite proposal and implements it to activate some time in the future (like what Bitcoin-XT did with BIP101).  

I believe this would be helpful to achieving consensus because now the user base has the ability to express their free choice more efficiently.  They will tend to migrate towards one of the particular implementations.  In an effort not to lose their user base, developers for the other implementations will make changes that at least make their code compatible (non-forkable) with what looks like the favoured solution.  

It's a sort of 'spontaneous consensus' event.  Of course, I can't prove that this will work, and that's one of the reasons why Bitcoin is an experiment.  However, if we need centralized development to keep Bitcoin decentralized, then it seems to me we've already lost.  

[Pab]

How do you propose different sets of developers working on their own implementation decide on a consensus code?

It would play out as a more efficient version of what's happening between XT and Core today.  Imagine that there are 5 competing implementations, each with between 10 - 30% of the node base.  They all run essentially the same consensus library because everyone knows it's very important to follow the longest chain, although they differ in features.  OK, so a few years down the road the community feels that a change needs to be made: we need bigger blocks!  Multiple proposals are put forward (as they are today), a big debate ensues (as it does today), and then each software implementation picks their favourite proposal and implements it to activate some time in the future (like what Bitcoin-XT did with BIP101).  

I believe this would be helpful to achieving consensus because now the user base has the ability to express their free choice more efficiently.  They will tend to migrate towards one of the particular implementations.  In an effort not to lose their user base, developers for the other implementations will make changes that at least make their code compatible (non-forkable) with what looks like the favoured solution.  

It's a sort of 'spontaneous consensus' event.  Of course, I can't prove that this will work, and that's one of the reasons why Bitcoin is an experiment.  However, if we need centralized development to keep Bitcoin decentralized, then it seems to me we've already lost.  

Yes very much agree with you
and to our Russian friend .There is good quote.If there is not possible to know what is about it is propably all about money

[VeritasSapere]

What a ridiculous and ignorant comparison.

We're talking about code. Not politics. GTFO

In the case of Bitcoin, code is synonymous with politics. Code is law, Bitcoin is a social contract. Consensus is a form of democracy, and the fundamental protocol rules are like a constitution.

[brg444]

What a ridiculous and ignorant comparison.

We're talking about code. Not politics. GTFO

In the case of Bitcoin, code is synonymous with politics. Code is law, Bitcoin is a social contract. Consensus is a form of democracy, and the fundamental protocol rules are like a constitution.

"Bitcoin is a social contract"

"Consensus is a form of democracy"

Have we officially gone full retard?

Take your Rousseau socialism elsewhere won't ya?

[cypherdoc]

It's sort of ironic that the push to increase the block size is what woke the community up to the problem of developer centralization in the first place.  Prior to this debate, people took it for granted that "basically everyone runs Core."  

sorry Peter.  it happened long before the block size debate:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/23fr63/bitcoin_20_unleash_the_sidechains/cgwt2nz

and it took Adrian-X and i to pound it home all Fall and into the Spring when the block size debate arrived to make everyone realize what we were saying is true.

and it came at great sacrifice; to me at least.

[VeritasSapere]

What a ridiculous and ignorant comparison.

We're talking about code. Not politics. GTFO

In the case of Bitcoin, code is synonymous with politics. Code is law, Bitcoin is a social contract. Consensus is a form of democracy, and the fundamental protocol rules are like a constitution.

"Bitcoin is a social contract"

"Consensus is a form of democracy"

Have we officially gone full retard?

Take your Rousseau socialism elsewhere won't ya?

So your counter argument is that I have gone full retard? For the record I am not a socialist. I do think that this is a predominantly political problem and not a technical one. The Bitcoin community needs to realize this so that we can resolve this dilemma before it causes even more problems.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHFSvttMg6E

[brg444]

What a ridiculous and ignorant comparison.

We're talking about code. Not politics. GTFO

In the case of Bitcoin, code is synonymous with politics. Code is law, Bitcoin is a social contract. Consensus is a form of democracy, and the fundamental protocol rules are like a constitution.

"Bitcoin is a social contract"

"Consensus is a form of democracy"

Have we officially gone full retard?

Take your Rousseau socialism elsewhere won't ya?

So your counter argument is that I have gone full retard? For the record I am not a socialist. I do think that this is a predominantly political problem and not a technical one. The Bitcoin community needs to realize this so that we can resolve this dilemma before it causes even more problems.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHFSvttMg6E

No, this is an entitlement problem. A typical reflex of sheeps trying to reflect their desires into what Bitcoin ought to be.

Bitcoin says no.

[yayayo]

Enough with this hyprocrisy. You are free to choose but not to talk about it on the main forums right?

Give us a break.

XTcoin is an altcoin.

This is the correct section for all XT-related discussion: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=67.0

If you don't like the rules, set up your own forum.


ya.ya.yo!

[tvbcof]

Cypherdoc antagonizes marcus_of_agustus who does a little research and responds with this thread.  cypherdoc loses mojo as high-powered-shill; flees trolltalk.

I think someone captured what marcus_of_agustus said the cypherdoc here:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spOvMHBz69k

Edit:  Opps.  Wrong thread.  I mean to post it on the PSA one.  Sorry about that.

[helmax]

if we not upgrade to bip101

we are fuck
all bitcoin system are fucked


XT is evolution

[VeritasSapere]

What a ridiculous and ignorant comparison.

We're talking about code. Not politics. GTFO

In the case of Bitcoin, code is synonymous with politics. Code is law, Bitcoin is a social contract. Consensus is a form of democracy, and the fundamental protocol rules are like a constitution.

"Bitcoin is a social contract"

"Consensus is a form of democracy"

Have we officially gone full retard?

Take your Rousseau socialism elsewhere won't ya?

So your counter argument is that I have gone full retard? For the record I am not a socialist. I do think that this is a predominantly political problem and not a technical one. The Bitcoin community needs to realize this so that we can resolve this dilemma before it causes even more problems.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHFSvttMg6E

No, this is an entitlement problem. A typical reflex of sheeps trying to reflect their desires into what Bitcoin ought to be.

Bitcoin says no.

Actually I could argue the opposite. Since the original promise and vision of Bitcoin is that we should increase the block size, and not increasing the block size would give Bitcoin fundamentally different properties compared to its original vision. Because this is the case you could argue that not increasing the block size is actually breaking the social contract. If we do happen to be fundamentally ideologically opposed to some of the original vision of Bitcoin then these differences should be implemented in another cryptocurrency instead, which would allow the market to decide. This would be better then everyone fighting over what kind of a Bitcoin they want and projecting their desires onto it. Since this might just be an impossible position, for one cryptocurrency to accurately reflect everyone’s ideologies. It might be better to stay true with the original vision of Satoshi Nakamoto for Bitcoin and if you do not agree with this vision it would be better if we just support another alternative cryptocurrency instead, that better reflect our own unique beliefs.

[jonald_fyookball]

Enough with this hyprocrisy. You are free to choose but not to talk about it on the main forums right?

Give us a break.

XTcoin is an altcoin.

This is the correct section for all XT-related discussion: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=67.0

If you don't like the rules, set up your own forum.


ya.ya.yo!

You are misinformed.  

XT is an alt client that supports the Bitcoin blockchain and its rules and protocol.

The only difference is it will support bigger blocks IF AND WHEN 75% of the miners agree.
if and when that happens, core will either upgrade to be compatible or Bitcoin
will fork, but since the economic SUPER MAJORITY will be supporting bigger
blocks, the 1mb version of Bitcoin will likely be considered the alt.

Just because one code repository calls itself core doesn't give it exclusive rights
to control Bitcoin or call itself Bitcoin.   That's what people have been pointing out
for years when Bitcoin pessimists tried to argue that 'Bitcoin isn't decentralized
because it's run by a few core devs.'. Well, now we are seeing that indeed, it
is decentralized.  The core devs don't call all the shots and if they try to do
something the community doesn't like (such as take too long to increase
the blocksize), they will lose their power.

If one understands all this yet still insists on calling it an "altcoin", then
it is an attempt to mischaracterize and marginalize it, and an attempt
to influence opinion through misinformation (thus it is intellectually dishonest.)
It is also an attempt to force an outcome based on one's personal opinions
and biases, rather than allowing the economic majority to decide.

[Peter R]

It's sort of ironic that the push to increase the block size is what woke the community up to the problem of developer centralization in the first place.  Prior to this debate, people took it for granted that "basically everyone runs Core."  

sorry Peter.  it happened long before the block size debate:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/23fr63/bitcoin_20_unleash_the_sidechains/cgwt2nz

and it took Adrian-X and i to pound it home all Fall and into the Spring when the block size debate arrived to make everyone realize what we were saying is true.

and it came at great sacrifice; to me at least.

You're right. You saw it all along.

[Zarathustra]

Oh yeah! That's why Switzerland failed: Having more idiots "vote" on what should go into the consensus politics, instead of a gang of professionals who decide.

The Swiss get to vote on whether to be subjects of Brussels or vassals of the U.S. and not much more from the looks of things.  Peg you currency to the EU?  OK (for a while at least.)  Absorb whatever foreigners Brussels tells you to?  OK.  Cough up confidential customer bank records to the U.S.? OK.  Pathetic.

Pathetic. German Citizens can not decide whether to be a member of the EU or not. Swiss Citizens can. They also decide to rise the taxes or not. US Citizens can not.
If they want to vote against doing bank business in the USA, they can. Those are the reasons why Xapo fled to Switzerland.

[Zarathustra]

How do you propose different sets of developers working on their own implementation decide on a consensus code?

It would play out as a more efficient version of what's happening between XT and Core today.  Imagine that there are 5 competing implementations,

Authoritarians (blockstreamers and their cheerleaders) hate competition. They love rulers and imperatives:

"We don't need democracy!"
"GTFO" (brg444)

And they hate Switzerland. (tvbcof)

q.e.d.

To separate the wheat from the chaff (to fork that mentality away from bitcoin) will be essential.