Analysis and list of top big blocks shills (XT #REKT ignorers)

[VeritasSapere]

^^So links to credible writeups with charts & pictures and stuff?

You can look up the stats for the S5 and the SP31 yourself, its not like this information is not public. Here is an example of someone down clocking an S5 though, gaining close to a fifty percent increase in efficiency while cutting the effective hashrate in half.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1151460.0

Impressive & credible (no sarcasm), just read the first few pages.
Though closer to 30 than to 50

Fair enough on it being closer to 30 then 50. In this case, it varies depending on the equipment used and amount of down clocking applied. The ability to down clock is nice, it definitely does extend the life of my miners.

[jbreher]

Jeebus... these block size wars are a bad train wreck of which I cannot look away.

Both sides of this debate has their own untestable axioms, a handful of reasoned thinkers, a passel of follower-droids, and a handful of ignoramuses who repeatedly spout completely discredited shit. Yet for all the noise and fury, for all the pages of fora we have killed and scrawled e-ink upon, the needle moveth not one iota.

The only way to truly determine whether big blocks or reduced utility will kill bitcoin is to run the damned experiment.

For today, I am tired of trying to get the other side to listen to reason. But we're in a field of permissionless innovation. And I know which hypothesis I believe has the overwhelmingly larger chance of leading to a sustained -- and growing -- Bitcoin.

So fuck all y'all cripplecoiners (admittedly loaded term, employed mostly for comedic effect - you can be offended if'n ya wanna). Imma complete my BU review. If I find no cruft, imma replace my Core node with BU. Imma set it to accept 2 MiB blocks. Then I'll start looking at the other bigblockian options. In case one looks better.

The best part: I don't need your fucking permission. Deal.

[jonald_fyookball]

If the blocks become larger it implies that there is increased adoption and use of Bitcoin. A high volume of low fee transactions over the long run would actually pay out more for the miners compared to a high volume of low fee transactions. The idea that if we increase the blocksize over time as the technology allows as it improves would lead to the network collapsing is not supported by the facts.

If we had a sixty four megabyte blocksize limit for instance with the same fees per transaction payed out today it would already exceed the present block reward. It is not impossible to have blocks this large, in a decade from now it might even seem trivial. It would even take BIP101 eight years to reach this point, and the newly proposed Bitcoin Classic more then twelve years. Most of the other blocksize limit increase proposals are even more conservative then this, which is fine. My point being is that a high volume of low value transactions can pay for the networks security and this would not lead to the network collapsing as you claim, especially as the limit is slowly increased as our technology improves.

As I explained HERE, as long as the blocks are not full, the fee income will always be a small percentage of the block reward, and it shrinks every 4 years. A reduced block reward + fee will make future miners only be able to mine a fraction of a bitcoin per each block (even fiat wise that means lots of money), greatly reduce the mining incentive, especially when most of the coins were mined

25-50 BTC per block fee is a much better incentive, and maybe the best incentive for the miners to continuously expand their operation, since it keeps every miner feels like an early adopter. But that is impossible to reach if we don't have block size limit

I think that you are wrong in this conception, It has been shown that we can have a fee market without a blocksize limit.

https://scalingbitcoin.org/papers/feemarket.pdf
http://www.bitcoinunlimited.info/1txn

Peter_R's paper made the same mistake as mainstream economists that they tried to use a simple formula to describe the complex real world that have millions of different actors, thus lost focus on the most important aspects. The supply and demand curve in his paper are all different for different miners since their cost structure are different

If there is no block size limit, when facing a rising orphan rate (e.g. large number of transactions), a miner's best approach is not to raise the fee, because that will make his node receive less and less transactions in a free block relay market, he would just move to large data centers to benefit from increased performance, thus he can use a low fee to attract more transactions, and this is exactly the centralization we don't want to see

I'm not so sure about this.

I think even if miners have different cost curves, it seems that it doesn't matter.

According to the paper:

an unhealthy fee market requires a propagation time that grows asymptotically with block size slower than log 𝑄. Using physical arguments, we can show that this is not possible.

[Quantus]

Jeebus... these block size wars are a bad train wreck of which I cannot look away.

Both sides of this debate has their own untestable axioms, a handful of reasoned thinkers, a passel of follower-droids, and a handful of ignoramuses who repeatedly spout completely discredited shit. Yet for all the noise and fury, for all the pages of fora we have killed and scrawled e-ink upon, the needle moveth not one iota.

The only way to truly determine whether big blocks or reduced utility will kill bitcoin is to run the damned experiment.

For today, I am tired of trying to get the other side to listen to reason. But we're in a field of permissionless innovation. And I know which hypothesis I believe has the overwhelmingly larger chance of leading to a sustained -- and growing -- Bitcoin.

So fuck all y'all cripplecoiners (admittedly loaded term, employed mostly for comedic effect - you can be offended if'n ya wanna). Imma complete my BU review. If I find no cruft, imma replace my Core node with BU. Imma set it to accept 2 MiB blocks. Then I'll start looking at the other bigblockian options. In case one looks better.

The best part: I don't need your fucking permission. Deal.

Haha! - *wipes away stray tear*  best post in this thread.
May the Ddos be with you sir.

[iCEBREAKER]

..but there is also a surreptitious judean's people front "splitter" strategy in effect: bitcoin xt, bitcoin unlimited, bip101010101010, segwit, soft/hard/easy ph0rkers.. dat nuthouse.

Ya but WTF is this supposed to mean!? I mean, srsly ppl!

Just srsly

It means Galvinista malcontents won't stop splitting once they begin.  Their rump consensus will inevitably cleave further, as crazed pro and anti CLTV/RBF/segwit factions create more incompatible forks.

Bitcoin Reloaded (XT +softfork segwit -RBF -blacklists -checkpoints), Bitcoin Extreme (Unlimited +hardfork segwit -CLTV +FSSRBF), Bitcoin Unbound (something something Sensor Ships blah blah blah Because Fuck Peter Todd amirite) etc.



Edit: Don't forget ICantBelieveItsNotBitcoin (Classic -anything Blockstream is in favor of +1 minute blocks +eternal 25BTC block reward +Frap.doc).   

[Lauda]

block hard limit increased to 2mb (allowing for more than 2mb potential for SW lite wallet)

the relay data is by default set to send signatures. even with SW miners. but anyone can if they are SW upgraded, can handshake with their peer to not request signatures as a non-default option. allowing old clients to still have some purpose, (no immediate castrations) while fanboys betatest new implementations live. and review if the masses should upgrade afterwards

I have already suggested a combination of 2 MB and Segwit. According to other sources this combination would be the same as a direct increase of the block size to 4 MB which is generally not believe to be safe (again, not my words) until some better technologies are implemented like IBLT. IMO the lack of conversation between users and developers is kind of bad. I've only tried to contact some of them a few times on IRC but have had only luck once (for only a few questions). Maybe Segwit would be properly explained and people like you wouldn't fight it.

This is where having multiple alternative implementations becomes very important for the governance mechanism of Bitcoin to work effectively.

I still disagree with this. Just because you are in disagreement with their way of scaling (for '16) that does not mean that multiple alternative implementations are necessary/important. Technically if SegWit works properly we should have enough time to increase the block size in late 2016/early 2017.

Imma replace my Core node with BU.

Welcome to the dark side Luke.

[Quantus]

block hard limit increased to 2mb (allowing for more than 2mb potential for SW lite wallet)

the relay data is by default set to send signatures. even with SW miners. but anyone can if they are SW upgraded, can handshake with their peer to not request signatures as a non-default option. allowing old clients to still have some purpose, (no immediate castrations) while fanboys betatest new implementations live. and review if the masses should upgrade afterwards

I have already suggested a combination of 2 MB and Segwit. According to other sources this combination would be the same as a direct increase of the block size to 4 MB which is generally not believe to be safe (again, not my words) until some better technologies are implemented like IBLT. IMO the lack of conversation between users and developers is kind of bad. I've only tried to contact some of them a few times on IRC but have had only luck once (for only a few questions). Maybe Segwit would be properly explained and people like you wouldn't fight it.

This is where having multiple alternative implementations becomes very important for the governance mechanism of Bitcoin to work effectively.

I still disagree with this. Just because you are in disagreement with their way of scaling (for '16) that does not mean that multiple alternative implementations are necessary/important. Technically if SegWit works properly we should have enough time to increase the block size in late 2016/early 2017.

Imma replace my Core node with BU.

Welcome to the dark side Luke.

what is this Bitcoin BU every one is excited about?

[hdbuck]

block hard limit increased to 2mb (allowing for more than 2mb potential for SW lite wallet)

the relay data is by default set to send signatures. even with SW miners. but anyone can if they are SW upgraded, can handshake with their peer to not request signatures as a non-default option. allowing old clients to still have some purpose, (no immediate castrations) while fanboys betatest new implementations live. and review if the masses should upgrade afterwards

I have already suggested a combination of 2 MB and Segwit. According to other sources this combination would be the same as a direct increase of the block size to 4 MB which is generally not believe to be safe (again, not my words) until some better technologies are implemented like IBLT. IMO the lack of conversation between users and developers is kind of bad. I've only tried to contact some of them a few times on IRC but have had only luck once (for only a few questions). Maybe Segwit would be properly explained and people like you wouldn't fight it.

This is where having multiple alternative implementations becomes very important for the governance mechanism of Bitcoin to work effectively.

I still disagree with this. Just because you are in disagreement with their way of scaling (for '16) that does not mean that multiple alternative implementations are necessary/important. Technically if SegWit works properly we should have enough time to increase the block size in late 2016/early 2017.

Imma replace my Core node with BU.

Welcome to the dark side Luke.

what is this Bitcoin BU every one is excited about?

bitcoin unlimited, as in unlimited blocksize..

whatver rocks the derps bloat.

[foxbitcoin]

Can I add Coinbase? It is one of the biggest  wallet providers. He is one fan of XT and is testing XT at its server. Check here http://bitcoinist.net/coinbase-tests-bitcoin-xt-removed-bitcoin-org/
So it is removed from bitcoin.org

[Bergmann_Christoph]

what is this Bitcoin BU every one is excited about?

It's a currently consensus compatible fork of core that give the user the choice to set their own limits. Miners can choose how big their blocks are, and nodes can chose how much traffic they spent and what maximum blocks they accept. So under some conditions BU will change consensur critical rule of core and start a hard fork.

If a miners releases a block with 1.1 MB and your node just accepts blocks untill 1 MB, your node keeps both chains untill the chain with the bigger block reaches some user-configurable depth. Then your node assumes that this chain is correct and jumps to it.

Fans of BU claim that it would lead to an emerging consensus about the blocksize and that with BU the market decides the blocksize, not any kind of politbureu-developers (not matter if core or gavin or mike or jeff).

Critics of BU say it can't work cause of game theory and some attack scenarios. Also some say it would weaken the confirmation consensus if nodes are capable of keeping two chains separate for some blocks.

The developer behind BU is theZerg, who refuses to post on bitcointalk cause he and his mates have been banned cause they discussed forking bitcoin. Another one behind BU is Peter_R, who has recently banned and unbanned from reddit and character assasinated by the usual suspectives. He recenly said - what I think is very interesting - that BU is the only client that can deal with forks and if we expect a scenario with chaotic hardforks, BU can help to deal with it.

theZerg said to me his orginal idea is to take as much as possible out of the consensus to make Bitcoin more flexible and to create an open environment for open development. This could help to develop bitcoin without hard- or softforks and envision a scenario where a very few consensus critical things, like the 21M limit, will never be changed while everything else is on a continuous vote.

There is a thread on bitcointalk in which Adam Backs wantet to review BU. In the end some posts have been deleted by commentators and even Adam Back confirmed that bitcointalk is not a neutral place to disuss things. After talking wih Lauda and after my personal experiences I don't share this. But I'd think there are indicators that Adam Back didn't want to review BU independently, but made his judgement bevore the discussion even startet (on reddit he said a few minutes after his initial post on bitcointalk that BU was already broken, without proofing his claim).

The thread is quiet interesting and, if you ignore the usual small block militia (that insults, prejuduices and dumbly repeats problems answered pages bevore) you have an interesting read
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1312371.0

edit: an example for small block militias reading competence is hdbuck right here

bitcoin unlimited, as in unlimited blocksize..

He was told so often that BU is NOT about an unlimited blocksize. It's about user's voice. With BU you, as a node, can even vote for smaller blocks, and when things come as they come and 1 MB blocks are too much for miners and nodes, they would be cut to say 0.8 with BU. As you wish small blocks and high fees, BU would give you the option to express this by setting the blocklimit. If miners think the same blocks will ever kept small.

But to be honest, the economic theory behind BU is that there already is a fee market whose mechanics are the orphans. There is a paper from Peter_R about it. It says a fee market doesn't need no blocklimit. But I think he didn't took the relay network into perspective, so this fee market currently doesn't exist, but maybe will exist with bigger blocks.

[hdbuck]

bitcoin unlimited, as in unlimited blocksize..

He was told so often that BU is NOT about an unlimited blocksize. It's about user's voice. With BU you, as a node, can even vote for smaller blocks, and when things come as they come and 1 MB blocks are too much for miners and nodes, they would be cut to say 0.8 with BU. As you wish small blocks and high fees, BU would give you the option to express this by setting the blocklimit. If miners think the same blocks will ever kept small.

But to be honest, the economic theory behind BU is that there already is a fee market whose mechanics are the orphans. There is a paper from Peter_R about it. It says a fee market doesn't need no blocklimit. But I think he didn't took the relay network into perspective, so this fee market currently doesn't exist, but maybe will exist with bigger blocks.

About user's voice..
The economic theory that there is already a fee market..
A paper from Peter R..

LMAO.


edit: how about a fork which let the user decide the block reward or bitcoin's cap? Choice is freedom! derp?!

edit edit: needless to say, a fork is an altcoin. Only the charlatans are not brave/honest enough to come up with a proper name and instead leech on bitcoin's name notoriety.

[DooMAD]

Only the charlatans are not brave/honest enough to come up with a proper name and instead leech on bitcoin's name notoriety.

Only the authoritarians are not brave/honest enough to live by the free market they claim they espouse to.  People calling themselves libertarians, but demanding protectionism in what's supposed to be an open and permissionless system, free from restrictions.  I'm pretty left wing myself, you'd probably even call me "statist", but apparently even I have more stomach for an open market than you do, coward.

[Bergmann_Christoph]

Only the charlatans are not brave/honest enough to come up with a proper name and instead leech on bitcoin's name notoriety.

Only the authoritarians are not brave/honest enough to live by the free market they claim they espouse to.  People calling themselves libertarians, but demanding protectionism in what's supposed to be an open and permissionless system, free from restrictions.  I'm pretty left wing myself, you'd probably even call me "statist", but apparently even I have more stomach for an open market than you do, coward.

Yes, an authoritative mindset is part of the small block militia that rampages through this thread, disturbing talks between two sides and damaging the reputation of sophisticated small blockers and core.

Just ignore them. There are many intelligent people here that know how to discuss different opinions.

I just don't set the small block militiants on "ignore", cause I want to teach other users about their practices. You'll never find me directly answering them, and so I recommend you to do.

[Kakmakr]

Whoever thought that the idea to implement a competing BIP with dire consequences to the privacy of the Bitcoin users, must be stir crazy. I would rather kick the can down the road and not bend the knee to make sacrifices to my privacy. We need a scalable alternative without these funny add-on's.

The two parties should come together and see where they could compromise on both sides and implement that solution and
consensus will be reached.

[hdbuck]

Only the charlatans are not brave/honest enough to come up with a proper name and instead leech on bitcoin's name notoriety.

Only the authoritarians are not brave/honest enough to live by the free market they claim they espouse to.  People calling themselves libertarians, but demanding protectionism in what's supposed to be an open and permissionless system, free from restrictions.  I'm pretty left wing myself, you'd probably even call me "statist", but apparently even I have more stomach for an open market than you do, coward.

Free market: you can choose to use bitcoin... or whatver fork altcoin.

But you'll stay poor and irrelevant either way.  

[DooMAD]

Only the charlatans are not brave/honest enough to come up with a proper name and instead leech on bitcoin's name notoriety.

Only the authoritarians are not brave/honest enough to live by the free market they claim they espouse to.  People calling themselves libertarians, but demanding protectionism in what's supposed to be an open and permissionless system, free from restrictions.  I'm pretty left wing myself, you'd probably even call me "statist", but apparently even I have more stomach for an open market than you do, coward.

Free market: you can choose to use bitcoin... or whatver alternative bitcoin client fork altcoin.

FTFY.  It's the choice of which client each user freely decides to use.  The client with the most users determines the rules that govern the Bitcoin network.  Free Market.  No altcoins in sight.

[hdbuck]

Only the charlatans are not brave/honest enough to come up with a proper name and instead leech on bitcoin's name notoriety.

Only the authoritarians are not brave/honest enough to live by the free market they claim they espouse to.  People calling themselves libertarians, but demanding protectionism in what's supposed to be an open and permissionless system, free from restrictions.  I'm pretty left wing myself, you'd probably even call me "statist", but apparently even I have more stomach for an open market than you do, coward.

Free market: you can choose to use bitcoin... or whatver alternative bitcoin client fork altcoin SHITCOIN.

FTFY.  It's the choice of which client each user freely decides to use.  The client with the most users determines the rules that govern the Bitcoin network.  Free Market.  No altcoins in sight.

FTFY FTW.

There is no problem with alternative client if they still abide by bitcoin's protocol. Lots of miners and nodes run in house bitcoind.
But that become not true if you change unilaterally a parameter and break the consensus (eg. differs from 'majority', obviously and because there is A LOT of idiots, statists and sheeps).

Otherwise, it is about time you jump to bitcoin XT. Much 'free market alternative client'.. pardon.. SHIT-VAPOR-COIN.

[DooMAD]

Only the charlatans are not brave/honest enough to come up with a proper name and instead leech on bitcoin's name notoriety.

Only the authoritarians are not brave/honest enough to live by the free market they claim they espouse to.  People calling themselves libertarians, but demanding protectionism in what's supposed to be an open and permissionless system, free from restrictions.  I'm pretty left wing myself, you'd probably even call me "statist", but apparently even I have more stomach for an open market than you do, coward.

Free market: you can choose to use bitcoin... or whatver alternative bitcoin client fork altcoin SHITCOIN.

FTFY.  It's the choice of which client each user freely decides to use.  The client with the most users determines the rules that govern the Bitcoin network.  Free Market.  No altcoins in sight.

FTFY FTW.

There is no problem with alternative client if they still abide by bitcoin's protocol. Lots of miners and nodes run in house bitcoind.
If you change unilaterally a parameter and break the consensus (eg. differs from 'majority', obviously and because there is A LOT of idiots, statists and sheeps).

Otherwise, it is about time you jump to bitcoin XT. Much alternative client.. pardon.. SHIT-VAPOR-COIN.

If it forks without consensus, then and only then does it break consensus and become an altcoin.  If it sends and receives bitcoin transactions using bitcoin's blockchain, it is an alternative client.  If enough users adopt a client with different rules governing the network, that becomes the new consensus.  If you're truly a libertarian who believes in a free market, this should be acceptable to you.  If you're a spineless authoritarian, you'll continue to demand protectionism for the present consensus because you can't stomach a free and open market where users are allowed to choose. 

[valiz]

Dear huge block shills, stop talking and FORK OFF!

 

[hdbuck]

Only the charlatans are not brave/honest enough to come up with a proper name and instead leech on bitcoin's name notoriety.

Only the authoritarians are not brave/honest enough to live by the free market they claim they espouse to.  People calling themselves libertarians, but demanding protectionism in what's supposed to be an open and permissionless system, free from restrictions.  I'm pretty left wing myself, you'd probably even call me "statist", but apparently even I have more stomach for an open market than you do, coward.

Free market: you can choose to use bitcoin... or whatver alternative bitcoin client fork altcoin SHITCOIN.

FTFY.  It's the choice of which client each user freely decides to use.  The client with the most users determines the rules that govern the Bitcoin network.  Free Market.  No altcoins in sight.

FTFY FTW.

There is no problem with alternative client if they still abide by bitcoin's protocol. Lots of miners and nodes run in house bitcoind.
If you change unilaterally a parameter and break the consensus (eg. differs from 'majority', obviously and because there is A LOT of idiots, statists and sheeps).

Otherwise, it is about time you jump to bitcoin XT. Much alternative client.. pardon.. SHIT-VAPOR-COIN.

If it forks without consensus, then and only then does it break consensus and become an altcoin.  If it sends and receives bitcoin transactions using bitcoin's blockchain, it is an alternative client.  If enough users adopt a client with different rules governing the network, that becomes the new consensus.  If you're truly a libertarian who believes in a free market, this should be acceptable to you.  If you're a spineless authoritarian, you'll continue to demand protectionism for the present consensus because you can't stomach a free and open market where users are allowed to choose.  

So far it is too late to implement various bitcoin implementations and 'hope' for consensus because network effect. Obviously not everybody will upgrade.

It will only split/harm the network and introduce attack vectors, having a direct impact over bitcoin's trust ie. value.

Adding some fancy adjective next to bitcoin to trap the noobs and reddit whatnots in some federal-centralized-corp-coin is outright lying.

Fascists.