Reversion to the mean

[sgbett]

All this talk is so wearing, I've been reading less and less on the forums and thinking.

When I got into bitcoin I saw something with massive potential to be disruptive technology. It looked to me like it could basically replace fiat currency, an opinion that I think was shared by a lot of people back in the day. Sure there was the whole get rich quick thing, and the insane volatility and the less cynical more funny community.

I still believe this fundamental idea that bitcoin can take over the world.

To do that it needs to grow though, and that's why "I am SGBETT and I am a big blocker"... but you all knew that already.

What seems to have happened though, is that a new idea has arisen. The idea that bitcoin *can't* scale, and should instead be used as some kind of settlement layer. That other things should be developed to provide the 'currency' style features.

What I am finding difficult is the whole debate seems to be now centred around the pro's and cons of two exclusive camps. BTC can *only* be store of value and settlement. BTC can *only* be cash. The participants have taken these as axiomatic truths and are arguing the pro's and cons.

At worst this is an intentional strategy, by characterising the argument in this way its easier to justify one position by radicalising the opposing view and arguing against it. At best its just misguided passion for what you believe in. A cynic might think its the former, but I am going to assume its the latter.

Concerns about centralisation are being used as a way to justify not increasing block size.

Concerns about full blocks are being used as a way to justify increasing block size.

The common theme is that in both cases these are just hypothesis. They are predictions of the future and they are fragile. brg444 said something on reddit earlier about Taleb's black swan, and how humans are bad at predicting. So lets assume that in both the statements above "concerns about X" are likely to be invalidated by a black swan event.

Where does that leave us?

Well the followup work by Taleb describes Antifragility. This means positioning yourself to benefit massively/protecting yourself from loss should the unexpected happen, which it inevitably will.

Of course this perspective can be twisted to justify pro / anti block size increase. I'll leave it to the small blockers to give there explanation as to how keeping blocks small is antifragile.

My view though, is that having larger than you think you need blocks is antifragile. If there is an unprecedented surge in bitcoin use then transactions can increase massively, fees go up massively miners get paid, we all cheer because bitcoin adoption is taking off (we can surely agree that everyone would like to see adoption no?). If the blocks are much bigger than we need, and they are not needed, nothing happens. An antifragile view (imho) looks at both outcomes and checks to make sure neither results in tragedy.

Lets take centralisation. Massive blocks, really big regularly, means fewer people can run nodes etc. This could happen, but how badly? What constitutes unacceptable levels of centralisation, unacceptable as in 'terminal', can we define this? Is there an actual block size (not block size limit) that causes terminal centralisation? Do 8MB blocks cause this, 16MB, 32... ? Don't forget each doubling is 2 years, so we are already in 2020 before anyone could mine a 32 MB block.

Note, that is *could* mine a big block. If we don't need it, we don't use it, and thats the flip side of the centralisation argument. Nothing bad happens.

You can dissect all arguments for and against block size in this fashion, trying to figure out what course of action is most antifragile.

Fee market - in 2020 with 32 mb blocks. If they are full then a simple extrapolation may be that we have 32x the amount of current fees in a block (about 6BTC). Maybe average fee per transaction has declined tenfold and there is only 0.6BTC a block. Still, the block reward is 12.5BTC so we still aren't exactly in tragic failure mode. If we are still only doing the same volume as today then nothing bad happens.

The closest I think we can get to arguing 'something bad happens' is the terminal centralisation of mining. A hypothetical *extreme* scenario. The fee market argument doesn't hold up because we still have decades before the block size gets small enough that fees are relevant.

I can't fathom why anyone is trying to force a fee market right now whilst the block reward is still so big. The only reason I can see is greed, and that would perfectly fit with all of human history. Bitcoin is the goose laying golden eggs right now, and it feels to me like some people aren't happy with one egg a day.

Why reversion to the mean, because this is exactly what the banks are doing right now. The banks squeeze us for every penny, because they are greedy and we have no choice.

This fee market? Who do you think pays for it, and to whom?

Appeal to authority, yes.
Appeal to emotion, yes.

Isn't that the whole point, doing smart things that feel right. Learning from history. Don't make bitcoin 'the bank', don't let greedy men fool you - it was inevitable that once bitcoin started showing value it would attract those that seek to take that value for themselves.

Bitcoin should be for everyone. Bitcoin should replace 'fiat' money.

A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution.

[iCEBREAKER]

You've got it all wrong, just like back when you were suffering under the delusion BIP101 blocks were necessarily being mined by RealXT nodes.

In case you forgot about that, here's a reminder you often assume you know WTF you're talking about even when you actually do not.

Pseudo nodes aren't mining blocks.

Remember that?  And then slush came out and disclosed yes indeed, his 101 blocks were being spoofed?  Good times!  I like the part where you were wrong.  Please don't try to (once more) generalize this as me claiming I'm smarter than you; I'm only saying I know how Bitcoin works and you don't.  Generic IQ comparisons have little to do with it.

The XTurds haven't forgiven slush for that BTW.  They still call him a coward for shutting down the 101 port to avoid more DDOS, while simultaneously begging him to reopen it.  How dare he not support their agenda at his expense!   

Bigger blocks do not provide the scaling ability you're looking for.  8MB or 20MB will do NOTHING to help in the case of actual widespread adoption, which is exactly why it is imperative fee markets be developed ASAP.  Even if we tried to make bigger blocks, SPV-type mining incentives would simply create more empty ones and defeat the entire purpose (while still incurring the costs of increased externalities and decreased survivability).

Please move beyond the simplistic 'every-coffee-and-bagel-on-the-Blockchain' paradigm.  That POV is so three-years-ago, and was rubbished once and for all by a single domination post.

The true value that Bitcoin brings to the table is not "everyone gets to write into the holy ledger", it is instead "everyone gets to benefit from sane and non-inflationary financial instutions whose sanity and honesty are ensured by the holy blockchain".

Like PR's considerations of spherical blockchains, your voluminous hypothetical nonsense ignores the fact no first mover will ever be able to defect from and thereby subvert Bitcoin's socioeconomic majority.  Anyone so foolish will be crushed by DDOS, Gavincoin shorts, and more.  Thus, everybody expects everyone else to go first.  And of course, nobody does.  Game over, newb...BIP000 wins!

We'll get larger blocks when Satoshi said we should - "eventually."

But "I really want them" isn't a good enough reason.

So 'Not Tonight, Dear!'

[Lauda]

Bitcoin does not scale efficiently on it's own. This is correct, and some developers have even stated this or something of similar meaning. This does not mean that we should not scale Bitcoin. This does not mean that we should only scale Bitcoin via block size increase either. You'd have to look into block propagation times and orphan rates to get a better insight. There were good presentations in the recent workshop. What Bitcoin needs is a dynamic block size in a combination with the Lightning Network, sidechains, etc. Only then will Bitcoin be able to be used by the majority.

Please move beyond the simplistic 'every-coffee-and-bagel-on-the-Blockchain' paradigm.  That POV is so three-years-ago, and was rubbished once and for all by a single domination post.

I concur. This is pretty much impossible due to the two things listed above (propagation times and orphans); impossible without the Lightning Network or something else.

[sgbett]

You've got it all wrong, just like back when you were suffering under the delusion BIP101 blocks were necessarily being mined by RealXT nodes.

In case you forgot about that, here's a reminder you often assume you know WTF you're talking about even when you actually do not.

Pseudo nodes aren't mining blocks.

Remember that?  And then slush came out and disclosed yes indeed, his 101 blocks were being spoofed?  Good times!  I like the part where you were wrong.  Please don't try to (once more) generalize this as me claiming I'm smarter than you; I'm only saying I know how Bitcoin works and you don't.  Generic IQ comparisons have little to do with it.

The XTurds haven't forgiven slush for that BTW.  They still call him a coward for shutting down the 101 port to avoid more DDOS, while simultaneously begging him to reopen it.  How dare he not support their agenda at his expense!   

Bigger blocks do not provide the scaling ability you're looking for.  8MB or 20MB will do NOTHING to help in the case of actual widespread adoption, which is exactly why it is imperative fee markets be developed ASAP.  Even if we tried to make bigger blocks, SPV-type mining incentives would simply create more empty ones and defeat the entire purpose (while still incurring the costs of increased externalities and decreased survivability).

Please move beyond the simplistic 'every-coffee-and-bagel-on-the-Blockchain' paradigm.  That POV is so three-years-ago, and was rubbished once and for all by a single domination post.

The true value that Bitcoin brings to the table is not "everyone gets to write into the holy ledger", it is instead "everyone gets to benefit from sane and non-inflationary financial instutions whose sanity and honesty are ensured by the holy blockchain".

Like PR's considerations of spherical blockchains, your voluminous hypothetical nonsense ignores the fact no first mover will ever be able to defect from and thereby subvert Bitcoin's socioeconomic majority.  Anyone so foolish will be crushed by DDOS, Gavincoin shorts, and more.  Thus, everybody expects everyone else to go first.  And of course, nobody does.  Game over, newb...BIP000 wins!

We'll get larger blocks when Satoshi said we should - "eventually."

But "I really want them" isn't a good enough reason.

So 'Not Tonight, Dear!'

or "please, please, don't increase block size now because ....?"

[iCEBREAKER]

We'll get larger blocks when Satoshi said we should - "eventually."

But "I really want them" isn't a good enough reason.

So 'Not Tonight, Dear!'

or "please, please, don't increase block size now because ....?"

"You'd have to look into block propagation times and orphan rates to get a better insight. There were good presentations in the recent workshop."

#R3KT

[brg444]

You've got it all wrong, just like back when you were suffering under the delusion BIP101 blocks were necessarily being mined by RealXT nodes.

In case you forgot about that, here's a reminder you often assume you know WTF you're talking about even when you actually do not.

Pseudo nodes aren't mining blocks.

Remember that?  And then slush came out and disclosed yes indeed, his 101 blocks were being spoofed?  Good times!  I like the part where you were wrong.  Please don't try to (once more) generalize this as me claiming I'm smarter than you; I'm only saying I know how Bitcoin works and you don't.  Generic IQ comparisons have little to do with it.

The XTurds haven't forgiven slush for that BTW.  They still call him a coward for shutting down the 101 port to avoid more DDOS, while simultaneously begging him to reopen it.  How dare he not support their agenda at his expense!   

Bigger blocks do not provide the scaling ability you're looking for.  8MB or 20MB will do NOTHING to help in the case of actual widespread adoption, which is exactly why it is imperative fee markets be developed ASAP.  Even if we tried to make bigger blocks, SPV-type mining incentives would simply create more empty ones and defeat the entire purpose (while still incurring the costs of increased externalities and decreased survivability).

Please move beyond the simplistic 'every-coffee-and-bagel-on-the-Blockchain' paradigm.  That POV is so three-years-ago, and was rubbished once and for all by a single domination post.

The true value that Bitcoin brings to the table is not "everyone gets to write into the holy ledger", it is instead "everyone gets to benefit from sane and non-inflationary financial instutions whose sanity and honesty are ensured by the holy blockchain".

Like PR's considerations of spherical blockchains, your voluminous hypothetical nonsense ignores the fact no first mover will ever be able to defect from and thereby subvert Bitcoin's socioeconomic majority.  Anyone so foolish will be crushed by DDOS, Gavincoin shorts, and more.  Thus, everybody expects everyone else to go first.  And of course, nobody does.  Game over, newb...BIP000 wins!

We'll get larger blocks when Satoshi said we should - "eventually."

But "I really want them" isn't a good enough reason.

So 'Not Tonight, Dear!'

or "please, please, don't increase block size now because ....?"

Because it's already a hassle to run a full node.

[sgbett]

Aha! The dynamic duo trying to bring the conversation right back around to exactly where they want it!

You can continue that conversation on your "xt is rekt" thread. I'm not really that interested in 'reasons why smallblocks' I already said that people will use whatever reasons they can to justify there preconceived opinion (just as I might do). However, You are still falling foul of this....

Concerns about centralisation are being used as a way to justify not increasing block size.

The common theme is that in both cases these are just hypothesis. They are predictions of the future and they are fragile. brg444 said something on reddit earlier about Taleb's black swan, and how humans are bad at predicting. So lets assume that in both the statements above "concerns about X" are likely to be invalidated by a black swan event.

A fee market doesn't help adoption, its a barrier to entry. Its the *opposite* to helping adoption.

You two can keep posting night and day about what you think is going to happen, but what will actually happen? that is another thing. When that black swan hits, everything you've argued turns to dust.

This is the essence of antifragile, to be wrong day after day, at a small cost. When the day hits that you are right, thats when the payoff comes, because doesn't matter how many times you post #REKT that one black swan will erase all of them.

A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution.

[sgbett]

Bitcoin does not scale efficiently on it's own. This is correct, and some developers have even stated this or something of similar meaning. This does not mean that we should not scale Bitcoin. This does not mean that we should only scale Bitcoin via block size increase either. You'd have to look into block propagation times and orphan rates to get a better insight. There were good presentations in the recent workshop. What Bitcoin needs is a dynamic block size in a combination with the Lightning Network, sidechains, etc. Only then will Bitcoin be able to be used by the majority.

Please move beyond the simplistic 'every-coffee-and-bagel-on-the-Blockchain' paradigm.  That POV is so three-years-ago, and was rubbished once and for all by a single domination post.

I concur. This is pretty much impossible due to the two things listed above (propagation times and orphans); impossible without the Lightning Network or something else.

I agree, we need a lightning network. So that when it becomes uneconomical to transact on chain, there is a backup. What I don't agree with is that uneconomical should be forced. Let the free market decide. Give the miners the headroom to discover the most cost effective block size. The stepped approach in BIP101 goes someway towards it, but really the system should be self regulating. No cap.

Propogation, orphan rates etc are engineering issues that will be solved when its worth solving them. Free market.

Lightning network will be implemented when its worth doing so. Free market.

Capitalism works, Unbridled it fails. Bitcoin is the reigns.

[poeEDgar]

"Peter R: Bigger Blocks = Higher Prices"

This dubious correlation is the crux of the issue (as much as "big blockers" might deny it). The mooners want moon today, and the block size limit should have been lifted yesterday to enable that. Unfortunately, merely increasing capacity (and simultaneously opening Pandora's box for attack vectors that exploit block propagation delays) does not create organic adoption.

Why can't people wait until adoption and overcapacity actually warrant increasing block size? In the meantime, we need to address the lack of disincentives for spam/dust transactions that needlessly increase throughput requirements on the system.

[brg444]

Bitcoin does not scale efficiently on it's own. This is correct, and some developers have even stated this or something of similar meaning. This does not mean that we should not scale Bitcoin. This does not mean that we should only scale Bitcoin via block size increase either. You'd have to look into block propagation times and orphan rates to get a better insight. There were good presentations in the recent workshop. What Bitcoin needs is a dynamic block size in a combination with the Lightning Network, sidechains, etc. Only then will Bitcoin be able to be used by the majority.

Please move beyond the simplistic 'every-coffee-and-bagel-on-the-Blockchain' paradigm.  That POV is so three-years-ago, and was rubbished once and for all by a single domination post.

I concur. This is pretty much impossible due to the two things listed above (propagation times and orphans); impossible without the Lightning Network or something else.

I agree, we need a lightning network. So that when it becomes uneconomical to transact on chain, there is a backup. What I don't agree with is that uneconomical should be forced. Let the free market decide. Give the miners the headroom to discover the most cost effective block size. The stepped approach in BIP101 goes someway towards it, but really the system should be self regulating. No cap.

Propogation, orphan rates etc are engineering issues that will be solved when its worth solving them. Free market.

Lightning network will be implemented when its worth doing so. Free market.

Capitalism works, Unbridled it fails. Bitcoin is the reigns.

Consequences of "mass adoption" & failure to enforce centralized limits and account for market incentives.

[brg444]

Aha! The dynamic duo trying to bring the conversation right back around to exactly where they want it!

You can continue that conversation on your "xt is rekt" thread. I'm not really that interested in 'reasons why smallblocks' I already said that people will use whatever reasons they can to justify there preconceived opinion (just as I might do). However, You are still falling foul of this....

Concerns about centralisation are being used as a way to justify not increasing block size.

The common theme is that in both cases these are just hypothesis. They are predictions of the future and they are fragile. brg444 said something on reddit earlier about Taleb's black swan, and how humans are bad at predicting. So lets assume that in both the statements above "concerns about X" are likely to be invalidated by a black swan event.

A fee market doesn't help adoption, its a barrier to entry. Its the *opposite* to helping adoption.

You two can keep posting night and day about what you think is going to happen, but what will actually happen? that is another thing. When that black swan hits, everything you've argued turns to dust.

I am a bit dumbfounded as to what your argument is... It seems you are proposing we cannot predict future events but that on the other hand we should act now to prepare for them.

From where I stand it appears you are making an attempt at interpreting what the "black swan" will be?

[sgbett]

Aha! The dynamic duo trying to bring the conversation right back around to exactly where they want it!

You can continue that conversation on your "xt is rekt" thread. I'm not really that interested in 'reasons why smallblocks' I already said that people will use whatever reasons they can to justify there preconceived opinion (just as I might do). However, You are still falling foul of this....

Concerns about centralisation are being used as a way to justify not increasing block size.

The common theme is that in both cases these are just hypothesis. They are predictions of the future and they are fragile. brg444 said something on reddit earlier about Taleb's black swan, and how humans are bad at predicting. So lets assume that in both the statements above "concerns about X" are likely to be invalidated by a black swan event.

A fee market doesn't help adoption, its a barrier to entry. Its the *opposite* to helping adoption.

You two can keep posting night and day about what you think is going to happen, but what will actually happen? that is another thing. When that black swan hits, everything you've argued turns to dust.

I am a bit dumbfounded as to what your argument is... It seems you are proposing we cannot predict future events but that on the other hand we should act now to prepare for them.

From where I stand it appears you are making an attempt at interpreting what the "black swan" will be?

You are dumbfounded about something? That needs to go on record. Usually you have all the answers

Yes you can't predict future events and so you should not take a course of action that is based on assuming something will or will not happen. Instead you should take a course of action that allows for (and positively embraces) the widest possible range of scenarios.

You have read Taleb haven't you, you know how antifragility works? You can see that imposing an artificial limit creates a fragile system? You are locked in to a particular view/model. If that model is not right then there is the potential for great loss.

Lets say we hard fork to an implementation with no block size limit. You are now in a position where you can go either way. The headroom is available if you need it, soft limits can be used to keep block size down if it turns out to be a problem.

And *everything* in between is available and possible. You aren't relying on a few good man guessing rightly, you are letting the market figure it out.

If you don't know what the best option is, and you don't however much you think you might, then leave your options open.

I don't want 1MB blocks, 8MB blocks or 8GB blocks , I want miners to have the option to produce blocks as big as is necessary at any given instance.

The 1MB block size limit was about a DDoS vulnerability. Not about the bitcoin economy. A whole bunch of people are trying to make it about the economy, and yet you keep accusing me of rewriting history.

[brg444]

Aha! The dynamic duo trying to bring the conversation right back around to exactly where they want it!

You can continue that conversation on your "xt is rekt" thread. I'm not really that interested in 'reasons why smallblocks' I already said that people will use whatever reasons they can to justify there preconceived opinion (just as I might do). However, You are still falling foul of this....

Concerns about centralisation are being used as a way to justify not increasing block size.

The common theme is that in both cases these are just hypothesis. They are predictions of the future and they are fragile. brg444 said something on reddit earlier about Taleb's black swan, and how humans are bad at predicting. So lets assume that in both the statements above "concerns about X" are likely to be invalidated by a black swan event.

A fee market doesn't help adoption, its a barrier to entry. Its the *opposite* to helping adoption.

You two can keep posting night and day about what you think is going to happen, but what will actually happen? that is another thing. When that black swan hits, everything you've argued turns to dust.

I am a bit dumbfounded as to what your argument is... It seems you are proposing we cannot predict future events but that on the other hand we should act now to prepare for them.

From where I stand it appears you are making an attempt at interpreting what the "black swan" will be?

Lets say we hard fork to an implementation with no block size limit. You are now in a position where you can go either way. The headroom is available if you need it, soft limits can be used to keep block size down if it turns out to be a problem.

And *everything* in between is available and possible. You aren't relying on a few good man guessing rightly, you are letting the market figure it out.

If you don't know what the best option is, and you don't however much you think you might, then leave your options open.

I don't want 1MB blocks, 8MB blocks or 8GB blocks , I want miners to have the option to produce blocks as big as is necessary at any given instance.

The 1MB block size limit was about a DDoS vulnerability. Not about the bitcoin economy. A whole bunch of people are trying to make it about the economy, and yet you keep accusing me of rewriting history.

Should miners also decide the block time interval? Or the total supply?

After all who knows the best option right? Might as well leave "headroom".

I'm curious, how do you propose the block size could be kept down "if it turns out to be a problem". Is it up to the miners or not? What are "soft limits"?  How do you enforce them?

I know you probably have read all of these arguments but are not concerned with nodes having to keep up with the miners incentives to optimize for profits?

Do you not agree with this? Do you think big game hunters should decide on the acceptable limits of endangered species they can hunt?

Consequences of "mass adoption" & failure to enforce centralized limits and account for market incentives.

[sgbett]

Aha! The dynamic duo trying to bring the conversation right back around to exactly where they want it!

You can continue that conversation on your "xt is rekt" thread. I'm not really that interested in 'reasons why smallblocks' I already said that people will use whatever reasons they can to justify there preconceived opinion (just as I might do). However, You are still falling foul of this....

Concerns about centralisation are being used as a way to justify not increasing block size.

The common theme is that in both cases these are just hypothesis. They are predictions of the future and they are fragile. brg444 said something on reddit earlier about Taleb's black swan, and how humans are bad at predicting. So lets assume that in both the statements above "concerns about X" are likely to be invalidated by a black swan event.

A fee market doesn't help adoption, its a barrier to entry. Its the *opposite* to helping adoption.

You two can keep posting night and day about what you think is going to happen, but what will actually happen? that is another thing. When that black swan hits, everything you've argued turns to dust.

I am a bit dumbfounded as to what your argument is... It seems you are proposing we cannot predict future events but that on the other hand we should act now to prepare for them.

From where I stand it appears you are making an attempt at interpreting what the "black swan" will be?

Lets say we hard fork to an implementation with no block size limit. You are now in a position where you can go either way. The headroom is available if you need it, soft limits can be used to keep block size down if it turns out to be a problem.

And *everything* in between is available and possible. You aren't relying on a few good man guessing rightly, you are letting the market figure it out.

If you don't know what the best option is, and you don't however much you think you might, then leave your options open.

I don't want 1MB blocks, 8MB blocks or 8GB blocks , I want miners to have the option to produce blocks as big as is necessary at any given instance.

The 1MB block size limit was about a DDoS vulnerability. Not about the bitcoin economy. A whole bunch of people are trying to make it about the economy, and yet you keep accusing me of rewriting history.

Should miners also decide the block time interval? Or the total supply?

After all who knows the best option right? Might as well leave "headroom".

I'm curious, how do you propose the block size could be kept down "if it turns out to be a problem". Is it up to the miners or not? What are "soft limits"?  How do you enforce them?

I know you probably have read all of these arguments but are not concerned with nodes having to keep up with the miners incentives to optimize for profits?

Do you not agree with this? Do you think big game hunters should decide on the acceptable limits of endangered species they can hunt?

Consequences of "mass adoption" & failure to enforce centralized limits and account for market incentives.

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Scalability_FAQ#What_are_the_block_size_soft_limits.3F

[brg444]

Aha! The dynamic duo trying to bring the conversation right back around to exactly where they want it!

You can continue that conversation on your "xt is rekt" thread. I'm not really that interested in 'reasons why smallblocks' I already said that people will use whatever reasons they can to justify there preconceived opinion (just as I might do). However, You are still falling foul of this....

Concerns about centralisation are being used as a way to justify not increasing block size.

The common theme is that in both cases these are just hypothesis. They are predictions of the future and they are fragile. brg444 said something on reddit earlier about Taleb's black swan, and how humans are bad at predicting. So lets assume that in both the statements above "concerns about X" are likely to be invalidated by a black swan event.

A fee market doesn't help adoption, its a barrier to entry. Its the *opposite* to helping adoption.

You two can keep posting night and day about what you think is going to happen, but what will actually happen? that is another thing. When that black swan hits, everything you've argued turns to dust.

I am a bit dumbfounded as to what your argument is... It seems you are proposing we cannot predict future events but that on the other hand we should act now to prepare for them.

From where I stand it appears you are making an attempt at interpreting what the "black swan" will be?

Lets say we hard fork to an implementation with no block size limit. You are now in a position where you can go either way. The headroom is available if you need it, soft limits can be used to keep block size down if it turns out to be a problem.

And *everything* in between is available and possible. You aren't relying on a few good man guessing rightly, you are letting the market figure it out.

If you don't know what the best option is, and you don't however much you think you might, then leave your options open.

I don't want 1MB blocks, 8MB blocks or 8GB blocks , I want miners to have the option to produce blocks as big as is necessary at any given instance.

The 1MB block size limit was about a DDoS vulnerability. Not about the bitcoin economy. A whole bunch of people are trying to make it about the economy, and yet you keep accusing me of rewriting history.

Should miners also decide the block time interval? Or the total supply?

After all who knows the best option right? Might as well leave "headroom".

I'm curious, how do you propose the block size could be kept down "if it turns out to be a problem". Is it up to the miners or not? What are "soft limits"?  How do you enforce them?

I know you probably have read all of these arguments but are not concerned with nodes having to keep up with the miners incentives to optimize for profits?

Do you not agree with this? Do you think big game hunters should decide on the acceptable limits of endangered species they can hunt?

Consequences of "mass adoption" & failure to enforce centralized limits and account for market incentives.

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Scalability_FAQ#What_are_the_block_size_soft_limits.3F

 

That was a rhetorical question.

The point is that every miners pick their limit and obviously each of them have different resources therefore it follows that they will never agree on some magical soft limit every one of them will enforce.

That's just straight up delusional.

[knight22]

That was a rhetorical question.

The point is that every miners pick their limit and obviously each of them have different resources therefore it follows that they will never agree on some magical soft limit every one of them will enforce.

That's just straight up delusional.

Of course miners have different resources and letting them compete for these resources is only good for the network to improve.

Why would miners need to agree on the soft limit? They don't have to. Those with the best resources will produce the bigger blocks. That's all.

[sgbett]

Aha! The dynamic duo trying to bring the conversation right back around to exactly where they want it!

You can continue that conversation on your "xt is rekt" thread. I'm not really that interested in 'reasons why smallblocks' I already said that people will use whatever reasons they can to justify there preconceived opinion (just as I might do). However, You are still falling foul of this....

Concerns about centralisation are being used as a way to justify not increasing block size.

The common theme is that in both cases these are just hypothesis. They are predictions of the future and they are fragile. brg444 said something on reddit earlier about Taleb's black swan, and how humans are bad at predicting. So lets assume that in both the statements above "concerns about X" are likely to be invalidated by a black swan event.

A fee market doesn't help adoption, its a barrier to entry. Its the *opposite* to helping adoption.

You two can keep posting night and day about what you think is going to happen, but what will actually happen? that is another thing. When that black swan hits, everything you've argued turns to dust.

I am a bit dumbfounded as to what your argument is... It seems you are proposing we cannot predict future events but that on the other hand we should act now to prepare for them.

From where I stand it appears you are making an attempt at interpreting what the "black swan" will be?

Lets say we hard fork to an implementation with no block size limit. You are now in a position where you can go either way. The headroom is available if you need it, soft limits can be used to keep block size down if it turns out to be a problem.

And *everything* in between is available and possible. You aren't relying on a few good man guessing rightly, you are letting the market figure it out.

If you don't know what the best option is, and you don't however much you think you might, then leave your options open.

I don't want 1MB blocks, 8MB blocks or 8GB blocks , I want miners to have the option to produce blocks as big as is necessary at any given instance.

The 1MB block size limit was about a DDoS vulnerability. Not about the bitcoin economy. A whole bunch of people are trying to make it about the economy, and yet you keep accusing me of rewriting history.

Should miners also decide the block time interval? Or the total supply?

After all who knows the best option right? Might as well leave "headroom".

I'm curious, how do you propose the block size could be kept down "if it turns out to be a problem". Is it up to the miners or not? What are "soft limits"?  How do you enforce them?

I know you probably have read all of these arguments but are not concerned with nodes having to keep up with the miners incentives to optimize for profits?

Do you not agree with this? Do you think big game hunters should decide on the acceptable limits of endangered species they can hunt?

Consequences of "mass adoption" & failure to enforce centralized limits and account for market incentives.

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Scalability_FAQ#What_are_the_block_size_soft_limits.3F

 

That was a rhetorical question.

The point is that every miners pick their limit and obviously each of them have different resources therefore it follows that they will never agree on some magical soft limit every one of them will enforce.

That's just straight up delusional.

You're right! But I would posit that they don't need to agree, they all need to act in their own best economic interest and that the free market will decide the most efficient conditions. (one might argue that they would talk amongst themselves and come to some consensus as this would be in there best economic interest. they have before, though of course they may not again).

I accept this is somewhat of a leap of faith, but the opposite requires on being smarter than the average bear. Humans are not, we are married to the idea that we are smart, and blind to all our flaws as a result.

[brg444]

That was a rhetorical question.

The point is that every miners pick their limit and obviously each of them have different resources therefore it follows that they will never agree on some magical soft limit every one of them will enforce.

That's just straight up delusional.

Of course miners have different resources and letting them compete for these resources is only good for the network to improve.

Why would miners need to agree on the soft limit? They don't have to. Those with the best resources will produce the bigger blocks. That's all.

Precisely.

You do know what you are describing is centralization and these bigger blocks will eventually make it impossible for me or you to run full nodes.

[brg444]

Aha! The dynamic duo trying to bring the conversation right back around to exactly where they want it!

You can continue that conversation on your "xt is rekt" thread. I'm not really that interested in 'reasons why smallblocks' I already said that people will use whatever reasons they can to justify there preconceived opinion (just as I might do). However, You are still falling foul of this....

Concerns about centralisation are being used as a way to justify not increasing block size.

The common theme is that in both cases these are just hypothesis. They are predictions of the future and they are fragile. brg444 said something on reddit earlier about Taleb's black swan, and how humans are bad at predicting. So lets assume that in both the statements above "concerns about X" are likely to be invalidated by a black swan event.

A fee market doesn't help adoption, its a barrier to entry. Its the *opposite* to helping adoption.

You two can keep posting night and day about what you think is going to happen, but what will actually happen? that is another thing. When that black swan hits, everything you've argued turns to dust.

I am a bit dumbfounded as to what your argument is... It seems you are proposing we cannot predict future events but that on the other hand we should act now to prepare for them.

From where I stand it appears you are making an attempt at interpreting what the "black swan" will be?

Lets say we hard fork to an implementation with no block size limit. You are now in a position where you can go either way. The headroom is available if you need it, soft limits can be used to keep block size down if it turns out to be a problem.

And *everything* in between is available and possible. You aren't relying on a few good man guessing rightly, you are letting the market figure it out.

If you don't know what the best option is, and you don't however much you think you might, then leave your options open.

I don't want 1MB blocks, 8MB blocks or 8GB blocks , I want miners to have the option to produce blocks as big as is necessary at any given instance.

The 1MB block size limit was about a DDoS vulnerability. Not about the bitcoin economy. A whole bunch of people are trying to make it about the economy, and yet you keep accusing me of rewriting history.

Should miners also decide the block time interval? Or the total supply?

After all who knows the best option right? Might as well leave "headroom".

I'm curious, how do you propose the block size could be kept down "if it turns out to be a problem". Is it up to the miners or not? What are "soft limits"?  How do you enforce them?

I know you probably have read all of these arguments but are not concerned with nodes having to keep up with the miners incentives to optimize for profits?

Do you not agree with this? Do you think big game hunters should decide on the acceptable limits of endangered species they can hunt?

Consequences of "mass adoption" & failure to enforce centralized limits and account for market incentives.

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Scalability_FAQ#What_are_the_block_size_soft_limits.3F

 

That was a rhetorical question.

The point is that every miners pick their limit and obviously each of them have different resources therefore it follows that they will never agree on some magical soft limit every one of them will enforce.

That's just straight up delusional.

You're right! But I would posit that they don't need to agree, they all need to act in their own best economic interest and that the free market will decide the most efficient conditions. (one might argue that they would talk amongst themselves and come to some consensus as this would be in there best economic interest. they have before, though of course they may not again).

I accept this is somewhat of a leap of faith, but the opposite requires on being smarter than the average bear. Humans are not, we are married to the idea that we are smart, and blind to all our flaws as a result.

This is not a "leap of faith", this is downright naive.

I'm sorry but what you posit is straight up nonsense. The miners are not a group, there is no such thing as "their own best economic interest". It is a competitive environment and they seek profit first and foremost. Miners with the most resources will set a limit beyond what the smallest players are capable of handling to eventually drive them out of the market.

You are right that they have talked amongst themselves before, it was to organize this SPV mining scheme that succeeded in causing a fork of the network. Are you really suggesting we trust these guys to do what's best "for the greater good"!?

[knight22]

That was a rhetorical question.

The point is that every miners pick their limit and obviously each of them have different resources therefore it follows that they will never agree on some magical soft limit every one of them will enforce.

That's just straight up delusional.

Of course miners have different resources and letting them compete for these resources is only good for the network to improve.

Why would miners need to agree on the soft limit? They don't have to. Those with the best resources will produce the bigger blocks. That's all.

Precisely.

You do know what you are describing is centralization and these bigger blocks will eventually make it impossible for me or you to run full nodes.

What I am describing is levelling up the game. Making it impossible more difficult for you and me to run a node might result in a loss of a couple of irrelevant nodes but it does not mean bitcoin will become centralized. Good enough decentralization is good enough and the market will keep it that way. If the node count drops down to a dangerous point, the market will react accordingly to resolve this situation.