Montreal scaling Bitcoin workshop recap.

[Carlton Banks]

Sounds like you know some pretty intimate details, any more?

Interesting how they didn't actually hedge their bets by investing in Blockstream also, any info for us about that, knight22?

Bank managers have very little understanding on the technical functioning of bitcoin and where this technology is heading. The fact that they didn’t invest in Blockstream only demonstrate that (thank God). Very few have hedge their bets with some bitcoin comapny but no more. Of course they have little interest of deeper understanding because we all know this technology can render their very lucrative business model into an almost obsolete one. However, keeping small blocks is a great way to push users into potential proprietary off-chain systems controlled by banks which can be used for fractional reserve, cooking books and all the great things they love doing. On the other hand allowing people to directly use the blockchain is a bigger threat to their business model.

So Goldman don't have a clue what they're doing, and you support the companies they invested in? Just a massive coincidence that dominant financial players only invested in companies that are now pushing BIP101?

I suppose it's also just a massive coincidence that you and the rest of your cohort all support BIP101 only, and have never entertained the various other ways of solving the problem. Sure.

[uxgpf]

Well, I think it has something more to do with Peter R being a skilled and serial manipulator of basic facts, in order to bring about a corporate takeover of the Bitcoin network.

I don't like him either, for those reasons.

BTW, can't help but be reminded of bitcointalk user Elwar's description of how to avoid potential espionage agents at public meetups.... Peter R seems very keen to put names to faces and also appears to be unusually athletic for a computer science geek....

So now everyone who has arguments supporting implementations other than Core is a secret service agent working in some hideous plan to destroy Bitcoin?
First it was Gavin and Hearn, and now even Peter R is one of them. Do you really believe this?

[Zarathustra]

Brg444, I'm not sure I got to meet you! Did we meet?

We didn't and I'm sorry to say I had no interest in doing so.

Some might be oblivious to your character and your sly ways but I know better.

It just wouldn't be honest for me to pretend there could exist some cordiality between us and act like nothing. The "block the stream" trolling pretty much sealed the deal for me in that sense. You might've gotten a few laughs out of it but I thought that was of very bad taste.

I'm sorry I don't think we can be friends  

Well I'm sorry to hear that. Best of luck to you in your future.

I really wish you two would have met and found some common ground. Here we have two people who were front row, in person, live action at the workshop that this thread is about, and instead of hearing your stories of who you met, what you saw, and if you think it was a productive with respect to the block size debate at large, we have to endure a bickering back and forth about hurt egos.  

Well, I think it has something more to do with Peter R being a skilled and serial manipulator of basic facts, in order to bring about a corporate takeover of the Bitcoin network.

I don't like him either, for those reasons.

No, you are one of them. I don't like you and brg444 for those reasons.

[Carlton Banks]

Well, I think it has something more to do with Peter R being a skilled and serial manipulator of basic facts, in order to bring about a corporate takeover of the Bitcoin network.

I don't like him either, for those reasons.

BTW, can't help but be reminded of bitcointalk user Elwar's description of how to avoid potential espionage agents at public meetups.... Peter R seems very keen to put names to faces and also appears to be unusually athletic for a computer science geek....

So now everyone who has arguments supporting implementations other than Core is a secret service agent working in some hideous plan to destroy Bitcoin?
First it was Gavin and Hearn, and now even Peter R is one of them. Do you really believe this?

Who said that?

All I'm doing is relaying what another user (who works in the intelligence services) told us to look out for. What you think of that is up to you. I was never one of the people who accused Hearn or Andresen of being plants, but it's highly likely given the circumstances. But no explicit evidence exists, and so making such allegations directly has no merit. And so I didn't do it. And haven't done so since.

Are you part of the contingent that likes to pretend that it's "all like it is in the movies", and that the intelligence services have no interest in something like steering the direction of bitcoin? Deluded position, you should learn something about the topic before you try to offer a credible view.

[knight22]

Sounds like you know some pretty intimate details, any more?

Interesting how they didn't actually hedge their bets by investing in Blockstream also, any info for us about that, knight22?

Bank managers have very little understanding on the technical functioning of bitcoin and where this technology is heading. The fact that they didn’t invest in Blockstream only demonstrate that (thank God). Very few have hedge their bets with some bitcoin comapny but no more. Of course they have little interest of deeper understanding because we all know this technology can render their very lucrative business model into an almost obsolete one. However, keeping small blocks is a great way to push users into potential proprietary off-chain systems controlled by banks which can be used for fractional reserve, cooking books and all the great things they love doing. On the other hand allowing people to directly use the blockchain is a bigger threat to their business model.

So Goldman don't have a clue what they're doing, and you support the companies they invested in? Just a massive coincidence that dominant financial players only invested in companies that are now pushing BIP101?

I suppose it's also just a massive coincidence that you and the rest of your cohort all support BIP101 only, and have never entertained the various other ways of solving the problem. Sure.

Every bitcoin company needs scalability of the blockchain itself for obvious reasons. Banks investing in some of them is irrelevant. Bitcoin is supposed to work with or without bad actors.

BIP101 solves the scalability issue once and for all and is currently the only "up and running" implementation. Time is money so time and money are running out for the $1G invested in the space. No one can afford waiting forever or another system (fork or altcoin) will take care of the scalability problem and bitcoin as we know it will be left behind. I don't care about various ways of scaling bitcoin if it means pushing users off the blockchain. While they can be useful at some extend, forcing people to these solutions is the wrong approach in my opinion because it complicates everything for applications/businesses to operate.

[Carlton Banks]

Sounds like you know some pretty intimate details, any more?

Interesting how they didn't actually hedge their bets by investing in Blockstream also, any info for us about that, knight22?

Bank managers have very little understanding on the technical functioning of bitcoin and where this technology is heading. The fact that they didn’t invest in Blockstream only demonstrate that (thank God). Very few have hedge their bets with some bitcoin comapny but no more. Of course they have little interest of deeper understanding because we all know this technology can render their very lucrative business model into an almost obsolete one. However, keeping small blocks is a great way to push users into potential proprietary off-chain systems controlled by banks which can be used for fractional reserve, cooking books and all the great things they love doing. On the other hand allowing people to directly use the blockchain is a bigger threat to their business model.

So Goldman don't have a clue what they're doing, and you support the companies they invested in? Just a massive coincidence that dominant financial players only invested in companies that are now pushing BIP101?

I suppose it's also just a massive coincidence that you and the rest of your cohort all support BIP101 only, and have never entertained the various other ways of solving the problem. Sure.

Every bitcoin company needs scalability of the blockchain itself for obvious reasons. Banks investing in some of them is irrelevant. Bitcoin is supposed to work with or without bad actors.

Banking investment is not irrelevant when the design proposals that banking investment backs have a direct centralising effect on the network.

You and your crew have zero credible arguments when it comes to this debate, but you keep repeating the same old nonsense over and over again, and it's all to serve the agenda of a bunch of highly intelligent psychopaths.


We do not want what you are selling, and so the free market ideology tells us: leave, peacefully. Go.

[knight22]

Sounds like you know some pretty intimate details, any more?

Interesting how they didn't actually hedge their bets by investing in Blockstream also, any info for us about that, knight22?

Bank managers have very little understanding on the technical functioning of bitcoin and where this technology is heading. The fact that they didn’t invest in Blockstream only demonstrate that (thank God). Very few have hedge their bets with some bitcoin comapny but no more. Of course they have little interest of deeper understanding because we all know this technology can render their very lucrative business model into an almost obsolete one. However, keeping small blocks is a great way to push users into potential proprietary off-chain systems controlled by banks which can be used for fractional reserve, cooking books and all the great things they love doing. On the other hand allowing people to directly use the blockchain is a bigger threat to their business model.

So Goldman don't have a clue what they're doing, and you support the companies they invested in? Just a massive coincidence that dominant financial players only invested in companies that are now pushing BIP101?

I suppose it's also just a massive coincidence that you and the rest of your cohort all support BIP101 only, and have never entertained the various other ways of solving the problem. Sure.

Every bitcoin company needs scalability of the blockchain itself for obvious reasons. Banks investing in some of them is irrelevant. Bitcoin is supposed to work with or without bad actors.

Banking investment is not irrelevant when the design proposals that banking investment backs have a direct centralising effect on the network.

You and your crew have zero credible arguments when it comes to this debate, but you keep repeating the same old nonsense over and over again, and it's all to serve the agenda of a bunch of highly intelligent psychopaths.


We do not want what you are selling, and so the free market ideology tells us: leave, peacefully. Go.

The free market wants bigger blocks and stay ON chain. Stop standing on its way.
Bigger blocks =! centralisation because the market has an incentive to run full nodes at low cost. The free market will come up with these kind of device so you can continue to run a node for cheap https://bitseed.org/

The small blockistans have no real argument apart overblown fear of centralisation simply because they don't trust that the free market will come up with capacity solutions.

[meono]

Sounds like you know some pretty intimate details, any more?

Interesting how they didn't actually hedge their bets by investing in Blockstream also, any info for us about that, knight22?

You've lost it dude.

You used to post such intelligent stuff.

Another head of the hydra speaks, and it's the same disgraceful conduct that can now be relied upon; I call you creatures out for what you are, and all you can do is point your finger and cast aspersions.  

I invite you all warmly, you, Peter R and knight22 and the rest of the cronies, to leave this community and the deceptions you are peddling. You will always be remembered in exactly the way I have exposed you. And you will all have to live with it.

lol are you having a period?

fcking cunt

[Peter R]

The free market wants bigger blocks and stay ON chain. Stop standing on its way.
Bigger blocks =! centralisation because the market has an incentive to run full nodes at low cost. The free market will come up with these kind of device so you can continue to run a nodes for cheap https://bitseed.org/

The small blockistans have no real argument apart overblown fear of centralisation simply because they don't trust that the free market will come up with capacity solutions.

I'm wondering whether it is even possible for Bitcoin to enforce a rule that goes against the will of the market.  I strongly suspect the answer is "no."

As an example, consider the block size limit.  When it was put in place five years ago by Satoshi, it served as an anti-spam measure.  It was actually 800x larger than Q* so the vertical line marked Q_max was actually 100 ft off the chart!  Since the production quota was to the left of the free-market equilibrium point, it didn't affect the market dynamics.  There was no economic pressure to change the limit.  



However, Bitcoin has grown tremendously over the past five years and the limit is now serving as a political measure instead.  It is to the right of Q*, resulting in what economists call a "deadweight loss."  This is the total economic activity lost as a direct result of the quota.  It also represents the will of the market (people) clamouring for change.



If the market wants to be at Q*, but the production quota is forcing it to be at Q_max, what can a group do to continue to enforce the production quota against the will of the market?  How can the invisible hand be restrained?

[uxgpf]

Why isn't Morning Day 1 video on youtube?

[Peter R]

Why isn't Morning Day 1 video on youtube?

I spoke with Pindar Wong (conference organizer); he assured me that they have a backup recording of the talks and will post them shortly (which I assume means within a day or two).  

[uxgpf]

If the market wants to be at Q*, but the production quota is forcing it to be at Q_max, what can a group do to continue to enforce the production quota against the will of the market?  How can the invisible hand be restrained?

If deadweight loss becomes large enough it forms a majority that will change the protocol as needed.
If not, then part of economy will exit the market.

[Peter R]

If the market wants to be at Q*, but the production quota is forcing it to be at Q_max, what can a group do to continue to enforce the production quota against the will of the market?  How can the invisible hand be restrained?

If deadweight loss becomes large enough it forms a majority that will change the protocol as needed.
If not then it will probably exit the market.

My feeling is that if deadweight loss exists, then by definition the economic majority wants a change to the protocol.  My hunch is that as the area shaded brown increases, it just exerts more and more pressure until there is a "dam breaking" event and the protocol forks.  It is sort of like a phase change in physics (it takes a certain amount of "latent heat" to produce the change).  


(Of course it is difficult to know for sure on which side of the equilibrium point the quota (Q_max) is sitting.)

[Zarathustra]

The free market wants bigger blocks and stay ON chain. Stop standing on its way.
Bigger blocks =! centralisation because the market has an incentive to run full nodes at low cost. The free market will come up with these kind of device so you can continue to run a nodes for cheap https://bitseed.org/

The small blockistans have no real argument apart overblown fear of centralisation simply because they don't trust that the free market will come up with capacity solutions.

I'm wondering whether it is even possible for Bitcoin to enforce a rule that goes against the will of the market.  I strongly suspect the answer is "no."

(...)

If the market wants to be at Q*, but the production quota is forcing it to be at Q_max, what can a group do to continue to enforce the production quota against the will of the market?  How can the invisible hand be restrained?

Yes, either the Politburo (core) is capable to steer the Bitcoin market - or the Bitcoin market is capable to kill the Politburo (the tragedy of the core) if they refuse to listen to the market. I still bet on the market.

[TransaDox]

I'm wondering whether it is even possible for Bitcoin to enforce a rule that goes against the will of the market.  I strongly suspect the answer is "no."

As an example, consider the block size limit.  When it was put in place five years ago by Satoshi, it served as an anti-spam measure.  It was actually 800x larger than Q* so the vertical line marked Q_max was actually 100 ft off the chart!  Since the production quota was to the left of the free-market equilibrium point, it didn't affect the market dynamics.  There was no economic pressure to change the limit.  

[.....cut....]

If the market wants to be at Q*, but the production quota is forcing it to be at Q_max, what can a group do to continue to enforce the production quota against the will of the market?  How can the invisible hand be restrained?

As you state. The block limit was imposed to combat "spam". In fact. I don't agree with the term "spam" since they are still valid transactions but the system cannot cope so they were marginalised to protect the integrity of the system. I expect the limit to be removed once the system has been developed to cope with any number of large or small transactions and see that as the main design goal.

Anyway. The introduction was a hack. A band-aid to sort out properly later. I view it as a temporary technical limitation being exploited by economists  in an attempt to monetise the block chain directly. I take a very dim view of that in the same way I take a dim view of those alt-coins that attempt to pay the developers with the protocol. It's like gamblers finding something to bet on after they had their cards, coins and dice taken away. They have found a chink in the system that allows a market and are now trying to open it up for further exploitation.

[Carlton Banks]

We do not want what you are selling, and so the free market ideology tells us: leave, peacefully. Go.

The free market wants bigger blocks and stay ON chain. Stop standing on its way.
Bigger blocks =! centralisation because the market has an incentive to run full nodes at low cost. The free market will come up with these kind of device so you can continue to run a node for cheap https://bitseed.org/

The small blockistans have no real argument apart overblown fear of centralisation simply because they don't trust that the free market will come up with capacity solutions.

More strawman sophistry: no one is making the arguments you are assembling.

They do resemble the position of those who oppose BIP101, but you're attaching those to wild distortions and caricatures to muddy the waters, as usual.


Can you ever conduct an honest argument? Seeing as the answer is no, I will suggest a solution: stop talking

[knight22]

We do not want what you are selling, and so the free market ideology tells us: leave, peacefully. Go.

The free market wants bigger blocks and stay ON chain. Stop standing on its way.
Bigger blocks =! centralisation because the market has an incentive to run full nodes at low cost. The free market will come up with these kind of device so you can continue to run a node for cheap https://bitseed.org/

The small blockistans have no real argument apart overblown fear of centralisation simply because they don't trust that the free market will come up with capacity solutions.

More strawman sophistry: no one is making the arguments you are assembling.

They do resemble the position of those who oppose BIP101, but you're attaching those to wild distortions and caricatures to muddy the waters, as usual.


Can you ever conduct an honest argument? Seeing as the answer is no, I will suggest a solution: stop talking

What are the arguments of small blockists apart the fear of centralization again?

[adamstgBit]

We do not want what you are selling, and so the free market ideology tells us: leave, peacefully. Go.

The free market wants bigger blocks and stay ON chain. Stop standing on its way.
Bigger blocks =! centralisation because the market has an incentive to run full nodes at low cost. The free market will come up with these kind of device so you can continue to run a node for cheap https://bitseed.org/

The small blockistans have no real argument apart overblown fear of centralisation simply because they don't trust that the free market will come up with capacity solutions.

More strawman sophistry: no one is making the arguments you are assembling.

They do resemble the position of those who oppose BIP101, but you're attaching those to wild distortions and caricatures to muddy the waters, as usual.


Can you ever conduct an honest argument? Seeing as the answer is no, I will suggest a solution: stop talking

What are the arguments of small blockists apart the fear of centralization again?

fear of being proven wrong.

[Peter R]

What are the arguments of small blockists apart the fear of centralization again?

They have no other arguments any longer.  The only remaining talking point they have is that if we raise the block size limit too much that it will result in centralization (without a clear definition for what this means).  

This is why I'm pushing my new talking point: how can a group enforce a production quota that fights the free market?

My point is that even if they are right (and they aren't) there is still nothing that can be done about it long term.  Bitcoin will break down dams erected by special interest groups attempting to block the river of transactions.  

[Lauda]

They have no other arguments any longer.  The only remaining talking point they have is that if we raise the block size limit too much that it will result in centralization (without a clear definition for what this means).

So we don't have 1% orphan rates at 1MB blocks? So the orphan rates would not grow if we had e.g. 8 MB blocks right now? It really seems like they don't really have any arguments. You should really discuss this with other people (not if you're going to be closed-minded) before making slides that are incorrect (hint: Luke-Jr said something about one on IRC if I recall correctly).

fear of being proven wrong.

They're not wrong. Centralization is already a problem.

Can you ever conduct an honest argument? Seeing as the answer is no, I will suggest a solution: stop talking

I suggest a better solution. Just put him on ignore and you will have a better experience around here.