Time to stand up to the XT shills here!

[ArticMine]

There is a very significant historical lesson here. Centralized transaction ledgers (such as credit cards) only became possible on a large scale when technology caused the cost of keeping the ledger to fall by many orders of magnitude. The same is true of de-centralized transaction ledgers such as Bitcoin. They will also become possible on a large scale as the cost of keeping the ledger continues to fall.

My take is that a true Bitcoin like de-centralized transaction ledger with at least the transaction volume of the current VISA network is only a matter to time. The only question is will this ledger be Bitcoin or some other cryptocurrency. In many ways Bitcoin runs the risk of becoming the Diner's Club of cryptocurrency for many of the same reasons. This is the fate of the first mover. Some of us wish to give Bitcoin the chance of becoming the VISA of cryptocurrency

[HostFat]

yes we all agree to scale bitcoin but not in the way that bitcoinXT is propose. Bitcoinxt movement has a hidden agenda and is clear that they want to take control of the bitcoin core.

And why Bitcoinxt (or BIP101) should have an hidden agenda (can you explain which one?) and Blockstream doesn't?  

I saw the video, and he still talks about the Bitcoin Foundation, which it doesn't exist anymore currently.

He say that it is good that all the powers are well distributed between all the parties, and that the users and devs are the ones which own more of it.

Decentralize the devs is another good achievement

[hdbuck]

There is a very significant historical lesson here. Centralized transaction ledgers (such as credit cards) only became possible on a large scale when technology caused the cost of keeping the ledger to fall by many orders of magnitude. The same is true of de-centralized transaction ledgers such as Bitcoin. They will also become possible on a large scale as the cost of keeping the ledger continues to fall.

My take is that a true Bitcoin like de-centralized transaction ledger with at least the transaction volume of the current VISA network is only a matter to time. The only question is will this ledger be Bitcoin or some other cryptocurrency. In many ways Bitcoin runs the risk of becoming the Diner's Club of cryptocurrency for many of the same reasons. This is the fate of the first mover. Some of us wish to give Bitcoin the chance of becoming the VISA of cryptocurrency

basically you want to turn the bitcoin p2P technology to a centralized supervisa?

seriously you think for one second that a fancy-marketed-corporatist-freeloading-xt-corp-gov-coin would retain the same value as bitcoin does now?

why not use ripple then? they got it all up and running already.


edit: and again, i understand that scaling in proportions to crush visa, paypal and western-frigging-union all together is not about block size in the first place.
so why not focusing on things that are actually relevant?

[ArticMine]

basically you want to turn the bitcoin p2P technology to a centralized supervisa?

seriously you think for one second that fancy-marketed-corporatist-freeloading-xt-corp-gov-coin would retain the same value as bitcoin does now?

why not use ripple then? they got it all up and running already.

No. I am in favor of a de-centralized crypto-currency with mass adoption. It will be driven by individuals storing petabytes or more of data in the future just as they store gigabytes of data today. What I do know is that Bitcoin with a 1 MB blocksize limit will not be it.

[hdbuck]

basically you want to turn the bitcoin p2P technology to a centralized supervisa?

seriously you think for one second that fancy-marketed-corporatist-freeloading-xt-corp-gov-coin would retain the same value as bitcoin does now?

why not use ripple then? they got it all up and running already.

No. I am in favor of a de-centralized crypto-currency with mass adoption. It will be driven by individuals storing petabytes or more of data in the future just as they store gigabytes of data today. What I do know is that Bitcoin with a 1 MB blocksize limit will not be it.

au contraire mon ami, 1MB ensures a minimum level of decentralization.
serisouly, decentralized literally means random people across the globe get to run and access the bltcoin client.
not big data farming corporations *inclusively*. else where is the decentralization in this? where is the trust? coinbase?

also, whats that shortcut implying mass adoption would somehow be linked with the block size.
is 'the mass' just waiting for bigger blocks to get on board??? is it a facebook/coinbase thing?


anyway, from my edit above, i think we can agree by now that the increasing the block size is not an effective way to improve scalability, besides potentially jeopardize this decentralized hence trustless and censorship resistant network.


so i am still happy to discuss realistic scaling solutions.

[ArticMine]

Actually a 1 MB blocksize limit ensures centralization because it forces the bulk of the transactions into centralized ledgers such as those kept by banks, credit cards companies. payment processors etc.

Running the Bitcoin client on a 10 year old feature phone or maybe even using a tabulating machine, punched cards and a telegraph line may be feasible but entirely pointless. Ok I jest. After all it was possible even in 1905 to send 1 MB of data over the telegraph network for a price. The price was just within the budget of JP Morgan. So why not reduce the blocksize to a few bytes since that was affordable for most people to send via the telegraph network back in 1905.

The reality is that technology does not stand still. In the future this debate will sound as crazy as my examples above.

[hdbuck]

Actually a 1 MB blocksize limit ensures centralization because it forces the bulk of the transactions into centralized ledgers such as those kept by banks, credit cards companies. payment processors etc.

Running the Bitcoin client on a 10 year old feature phone or maybe even using a tabulating machine, punched cards and a telegraph line may be feasible but entirely pointless. Ok I jest. After all it was possible even in 1905 to send 1 MB of data over the telegraph network for a price. The price was just within the budget of JP Morgan. So why not reduce the blocksize to a few bytes since that was affordalbe for most people to send via the telegraph network back in 1905.

The reality is that technology does not stand still. In the future this debate will sound as crazy as my examples above.

i concur, quite a story you got here, but im more of a stoic person, sry.

i do not like to let myself drift into futuristic unicorns or past metaphors, but i understand what makes bitcoin valuable now, and i can assure you nothing else matters.

[ArticMine]

i concur, quite a story you got here, but im more of a stoic person, sry.

i do not like to let myself drift into futuristic unicorns or past metaphors, but i understand what makes bitcoin valuable now, and i can assure you nothing else matters.

Just keep in mind that since 2010 when this debate was started the goalposts have moved. 1 MB of data back then is more like 6 MB of data today. By next year it will be around 8 MB. So are we talking about what is appropiate today or 5 years ago?

[smoothie]

It is very telling given there is so much disagreement on bitcoin moving forward on the simple topic of Block Size.

[ArticMine]

It is very telling given there is so much disagreement on bitcoin moving forward on the simple topic of Block Size.

See you in the alt-coin section,

[hdbuck]

i concur, quite a story you got here, but im more of a stoic person, sry.

i do not like to let myself drift into futuristic unicorns or past metaphors, but i understand what makes bitcoin valuable now, and i can assure you nothing else matters.

Just keep in mind that since 2010 when this debate was started the goalposts have moved. 1 MB of data back then is more like 6 MB of data today. By next year it will be around 8 MB. So are we talking about what is appropiate today or 5 years ago?

im talking about 'scaling' bitcoin, like effectively, with no limits and whislt preserving the newtork's integrity (and regardless of some out of a hat usb storage growth).


edit: it seems your concerns are way too futile, sorry to say so.

[smoothie]

It is very telling given there is so much disagreement on bitcoin moving forward on the simple topic of Block Size.

See you in the alt-coin section,

See you all over the forum. 

[ArticMine]

i concur, quite a story you got here, but im more of a stoic person, sry.

i do not like to let myself drift into futuristic unicorns or past metaphors, but i understand what makes bitcoin valuable now, and i can assure you nothing else matters.

Just keep in mind that since 2010 when this debate was started the goalposts have moved. 1 MB of data back then is more like 6 MB of data today. By next year it will be around 8 MB. So are we talking about what is appropiate today or 5 years ago?

im talking about 'scaling' bitcoin, like effectively, with no limits and whislt preserving the newtork's integrity (and regardless of some out of a hat usb storage growth).


edit: it seems your concerns are way too futile, sorry to say so.

My preference is for market based blocksize adaptive limits that will allow Bitcoin to scale with technological change. There are alt-coins that today have this kind of dynamic blocksize in place. In the interim there is a very good case to move to 8 MB blocks in 2016 just based on the argument that from a de-centralization / centralization prespective this is equivalent to 1 MB in 2010.

[hdbuck]

i concur, quite a story you got here, but im more of a stoic person, sry.

i do not like to let myself drift into futuristic unicorns or past metaphors, but i understand what makes bitcoin valuable now, and i can assure you nothing else matters.

Just keep in mind that since 2010 when this debate was started the goalposts have moved. 1 MB of data back then is more like 6 MB of data today. By next year it will be around 8 MB. So are we talking about what is appropiate today or 5 years ago?

im talking about 'scaling' bitcoin, like effectively, with no limits and whislt preserving the newtork's integrity (and regardless of some out of a hat usb storage growth).


edit: it seems your concerns are way too futile, sorry to say so.

My preference is for market based blocksize adaptive limits that will allow Bitcoin to scale with technological change. There are alt-coins that today have this kind of dynamic blocksize in place. In the interim there is a very good case to move to 8 MB blocks in 2016 just based on the argument that from a de-centralization / centralization prespective this is equivalent to 1 MB in 2010.

we are not even at 1MB on average, you sure there is no place nor time for other effective scaling solution to be investigated?

otoh i heard ripple is a lot cheaper and faster... where is their mass adoption?

[ArticMine]

...


we are not even at 1MB on average, you sure there is no place nor time for other effective scaling solution to be investigated?

otoh i heard ripple is a lot cheaper and faster... where is their mass adoption?

Well I guess we can wait for Bitcoin to start to fail and then act.

[jonald_fyookball]

The rally is fading so now its back to the blocksize debate. Yay.

I don't see a single thin in this thread that hasn't been said before.
I still support Bip101.

[Cconvert2G36]

It's only a question of trajectory now imo. Adam's 2-4-8 is a possibility, and I've no doubt others will emerge.

XT might not be the solution, but it is a manifestation of the opinion of part of the network.

[CIYAM]

Unfortunately as is once again shown in this topic - the issue of block size is being thought of as the issue of XT (and that was actually the reason behind my creating this topic as opposed to creating a topic about block size).

Quite simply it is not as their are numerous other options for increasing block size that don't involve XT at all and XT includes numerous things that are not to do with block size increasing (some of which are quite contentious).

What XT really is - is just a way for Mike Hearn to "take control of the Bitcoin project" (and he has admitted as much).

So if you are a supporter of XT then you are "not a supporter of big blocks" (as you should support any of the BIPs that will increase the block size) - you are actually a supporter of Mike Hearn becoming effectively the CEO of Bitcoin (and this is the antithesis of what Satoshi had described in his paper).

[ArticMine]

Unfortunately as is once again shown in this topic - the issue of block size is being thought of as the issue of XT (and that was actually the reason behind my creating this topic as opposed to creating a topic about block size).

Quite simply it is not as their are numerous other options for increasing block size that don't involve XT at all and XT includes numerous things that are not to do with block size increasing (some of which are quite contentious).

What XT really is - is just a way for Mike Hearn to "take control of the Bitcoin project" (and he has admitted as much).

So if you are a supporter of XT then you are "not a supporter of big blocks" (as you should support any of the BIPs that will increase the block size) - you are actually a supporter of Mike Hearn becoming effectively the CEO of Bitcoin (and this is the antithesis of what Satoshi had described in his paper).

This is a very valid point. It can be addressed by supporting the "only-bigblocks" branch of Bitcoin XT or if one prefers fork it and call it something else. There is a lot of controversial and needless baggage added to Bitcoin XT that only serves to confuse the debate. When it comes to the blocksize issue the "only-bigblocks" branch of Bitcoin XT is the best of the interim solutions that have been proposed. I have not seen a good permanent solution to the blocksize issue.  Furthermore the hard fork in Bitcoin XT only applies to the blocksize. The "baggage" can be added or removed without a hard fork.

[Zarathustra]

What XT really is - is just a way for Mike Hearn to "take control of the Bitcoin project" (and he has admitted as much).

XT is open source. Since it is on the market, the user has choice.
The only people who are trying to control Bitcoin are on the side that is banning, censoring, DDoSing.

I want to respond to all this consensus talk by saying that all that matters is the consensus of the users, not the consensus of the devs, moderators, or some nebulous definition of the "community".

Bitcoin was designed so that all that matters is the consensus of the users of the software. The consensus of the developers is irrelevant except as a source for informing user consensus. The consensus of the moderators is similarly irrelevant.

To reach consensus, users must be able to test alternate implementations and moreso to switch to implementations inconsistent with the consensus of the developers, moderators, or any other smaller subgroup. If users cannot switch implementations, they cannot meaningfully achieve consensus, because any decision they make represents an imposition of the coercive will of a smaller group in charge of the "allowed implementations" rather than an organic consensus of the users.

Therefore, any actions which prevent users from exploring alternatives to achieve consensus are actively hostile to such a consensus. This includes coercion of the community against switching implementations, and coercion of the community against the forking of the currency, all of which are essential tools inherent to the consensus-enabling data structure that brought us all here in the first place.

Bitcoin is an idea, not a piece of software. Bitcoin is not Bitcoin Core. Telling users what Bitcoin is and isn't constitutes deciding for them in a coercive fashion, and is the most counterproductive action one can take towards achieving a consensus of the users. It also shows an alarming lack of faith in the blockchain datastructure itself, which was built to allow for forking both soft and hard.

Scaling Bitcoin requires consensus of the users. Consensus of the users requires free discussion, the ability to explore alternate implementations, and the ability to create both soft and hard forks freely. Consensus requires market participation, and consensus on scaling Bitcoin cannot be meaningfully achieved otherwise, especially not through such policed weekly sandboxed discussions only a few users are still participating in.


https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3qpnud/scaling_bitcoin_102915/cwrrbdk