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

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

A trip to the moon requires a rocket with multiple stages or otherwise the rocket equation will eat your lunch... packing everyone in clown-car style into a trebuchet and hoping for success is right out.

  Despite the hyperbole... how much of an exaggeration is this, exactly? I find it difficult to believe that Hearn or Garzik's play were ever expected as serious successes by their devisors.

I have a feeling the long term strategy is to maintain as diverse a ranges of pressures on all stakeholders as possible, when all of a sudden a bunch of GE/IBM/Google types will turn up in the metaphorical DeLorean/Ghostbusters van, some Egon Spengler/Christopher Lloyd type exclaiming: "We're the Bitcoin Doctors, and we're here to sort this whole mess out for you all! Don't thank us now..."

Were this an AMA I might have asked him why he chose to give up his commit access instead of his corporate partnerships.

[Fatman3001]

But do you know what they are for and why they're completely irrelevant to this debate? Are you just writing stuff to shut us up?

They are relevant and no I'm not. I'd like proper feedback. If someone wants to deploy multiple nodes and doesn't have a big budget aren't PI's and similar computers their best option? Regardless, I'm asking where the cut-off point is? What 'minimum sys. requirements' should full nodes have?

mmkey, let's see if I can clarify:

You guys obviously have no clue as to what an 'example' is. I could care less about the Raspberry PI, but I know a lot of people using those to either mine or run nodes.

Sure. I have literally hundreds of Raspberrys and Beagle Boards in my mine. But do you know what they are for and why they're completely irrelevant to this debate? Are you just writing stuff to shut us up?

The Beagles and the RaspBs in mines are used to control ASICs, they run CGminer and receive and send work to the server/pool. Anyone using it in a way that's touching the blockchain directly is doing it wrong.

And you seem to think everyone should run a full node. In the name of decentralization.

Wrong conclusions. I think that anyone who wishes to run a full node should be able to do so relatively inexpensively (e.g. not costing the user a fortune) and easily (setting up). I do not think that more people should be pushed into SPV wallets because of some limitation in their region (internet as an example). They should be allowed to choose. 
You are probably going to improperly understand this again. I do not mean that I'm against 2 MB blocks. I've been actually advocating for dynamic blocks in another debate last year. I'm just trying to point out that it is not all white and black.

Good to hear.

[iCEBREAKER]

If you prove we will not see over 10 TB HDDs in mass production in the following 6 years, then you can get some big blockers more sceptical about scaling above 2 or 4 MB. So go ahead.

You said 10-100TB, which implied a tenfold increase in 6 years. This is not likely.

All we have to do is loudly demand 100TB hard drives be available in 6 years.

Obnixious repetitive complaining will force those lazy, stubborn, greedy bastards at Seagate and Western Digital to come up with a solution.

That's how engineering works, right?  

[siameze]

If you prove we will not see over 10 TB HDDs in mass production in the following 6 years, then you can get some big blockers more sceptical about scaling above 2 or 4 MB. So go ahead.

You said 10-100TB, which implied a tenfold increase in 6 years. This is not likely.

All we have to do is loudly demand 100TB hard drives be available in 6 years.

Obnixious repetitive complaining will force those lazy, stubborn, greedy bastards at Seagate and Western Digital to come up with a solution.

That's how engineering works, right?   

How dare those bastards censor us! We will start a new subreddit r/100tbHardDrives and show them what everyone wants. Nevermind that the engineers have told us repeatedly told us they can't make 100TB+ HDD's at this time, WE WANT IT AND WE WANT IT NOW.

[bargainbin]

If you prove we will not see over 10 TB HDDs in mass production in the following 6 years, then you can get some big blockers more sceptical about scaling above 2 or 4 MB. So go ahead.

You said 10-100TB, which implied a tenfold increase in 6 years. This is not likely.

All we have to do is loudly demand 100TB hard drives be available in 6 years.

Obnixious repetitive complaining will force those lazy, stubborn, greedy bastards at Seagate and Western Digital to come up with a solution.

That's how engineering works, right?  

Roughly. Most solutions start with a problem, not the other way around.* If there's no demand for greater storage capacity, devices having such capacity are far less likely to be made
*Bitcoin, of course, being the notable exception.

[Fatman3001]

If you prove we will not see over 10 TB HDDs in mass production in the following 6 years, then you can get some big blockers more sceptical about scaling above 2 or 4 MB. So go ahead.

You said 10-100TB, which implied a tenfold increase in 6 years. This is not likely.

All we have to do is loudly demand 100TB hard drives be available in 6 years.

Obnixious repetitive complaining will force those lazy, stubborn, greedy bastards at Seagate and Western Digital to come up with a solution.

That's how engineering works, right?  

If you want reliable drives you need to use HGST.

I'm sure this will do for a while.

[iCEBREAKER]

You can't get to Visa tps from here.  Our only realistic path to Visa is orthogonal scaling, where each tx does the maximum economic work possible.

Obviously you cant scale to Visa with onchain transactions and keep node decentralization. But it does not mean you cant increase to 6tps or 12tps right now and give users much better experience with Bitcoin so it is well worth while keeping node decentralization, not insignificiant and unnecessary as you say.

You're almost half right.  The half where you are completely wrong is the one where you pretend trade-offs do not exist.

Bitcoin can't get to Visa scale tps even using fully centralized nodes and silly, hardcoded, ad hoc rules (like the "Max_tx_size = 100k" Gavin considered before thinking better of such indefensibly complex, future-constraining cruft).  Verification using current BTC sigop code is physically impossible at 100k tps, no matter what kind of supercomputer cluster you use (except perhaps C01N  ).

If the first 3 tps are insignificant then so are the next 3 or 9.  So, from where does your magically occurring putative "much better experience with Bitcoin" originate?

Let's investigate!

UX @ 3tps: pay a competitive fee (about 12 cents) to ensure priority processing even during peak hours' surge charges
UX @ 6tps: pay a competitive fee (about 6 cents) to ensure priority processing even during peak hours' surge charges
UX @ 12tps: pay a competitive fee (about 3 cents) to ensure priority processing even during peak hours' surge charges

Wow, an entire 9 cents of savings and at only the cost of sacrificing Bitcoin's interesting diverse/diffuse/defensible/resilient properties.  Sign me up for that!

Jusk kidding.  Actually, I will never trade one iota of infinitely precious, crucial Bitcoin security in exchange for mere additional capacity.

Bitcoin needs every bit of security/decentralization/antifragility it can muster, because the adversity is only beginning to get started.

I'll gladly pay an extra 9 (or 90, or 900) cents to ensure Bitcoin has the best possible chance of surviving endless attacks by the combined might of the world's nation-states, central banks, and hax0rz (not to mention world wars and depressions).

This isn't about Frappuccino discounts and tipping witty cat video commentators; this is a battle for everything.

[CuntChocula]

...
Bitcoin can't get to Visa scale tps even using fully centralized nodes and silly, hardcoded, ad hoc rules (like the "Max_tx_size = 100k" "MAX_BLOCK_SIZE = 1000000"...

FTFY

[sgbett]

You can't get to Visa tps from here.  Our only realistic path to Visa is orthogonal scaling, where each tx does the maximum economic work possible.

Obviously you cant scale to Visa with onchain transactions and keep node decentralization. But it does not mean you cant increase to 6tps or 12tps right now and give users much better experience with Bitcoin so it is well worth while keeping node decentralization, not insignificiant and unnecessary as you say.

You're almost half right.  The half where you are completely wrong is the one where you pretend trade-offs do not exist.

Bitcoin can't get to Visa scale tps even using fully centralized nodes and silly, hardcoded, ad hoc rules (like the "Max_tx_size = 100k" Gavin considered before thinking better of such indefensibly complex, future-constraining cruft).  Verification using current BTC sigop code is physically impossible at 100k tps, no matter what kind of supercomputer cluster you use (except perhaps C01N  ).

If the first 3 tps are insignificant then so are the next 3 or 9.  So, from where does your magically occurring putative "much better experience with Bitcoin" originate?

Let's investigate!

UX @ 3tps: pay a competitive fee (about 12 cents) to ensure priority processing even during peak hours' surge charges
UX @ 6tps: pay a competitive fee (about 6 cents) to ensure priority processing even during peak hours' surge charges
UX @ 12tps: pay a competitive fee (about 3 cents) to ensure priority processing even during peak hours' surge charges

Wow, an entire 9 cents of savings and at only the cost of sacrificing Bitcoin's interesting diverse/diffuse/defensible/resilient properties.  Sign me up for that!

Jusk kidding.  Actually, I will never trade one iota of infinitely precious, crucial Bitcoin security in exchange for mere additional capacity.

Bitcoin needs every bit of security/decentralization/antifragility it can muster, because the adversity is only beginning to get started.

I'll gladly pay an extra 9 (or 90, or 900) cents to ensure Bitcoin has the best possible chance of surviving endless attacks by the combined might of the world's nation-states, central banks, and hax0rz (not to mention world wars and depressions).

This isn't about Frappuccino discounts and tipping witty cat video commentators; this is a battle for everything.

I get what you are saying that stuff is important *really* important.

If we are going to win 'everything' though we are going to need to get more people on our side. In this regard I wonder if you underestimate the value of utility as a factor in getting us to the tipping point.

We need some of the unwashed masses, like it or not. Not all of them, especially not the frapucinno cat tippers, but more than we have right now.

IMHO of course

[iCEBREAKER]

This sounds like a MBA school failure example: Ignoring your strengths and trying to match one on one with a competitor in an area where you're weakest and the slowest to improve and they're strongest and the fastest to improve.  Especially since considering payment networks as the primary competition for a _currency_ is a bit bizarre. Yet a payment network is all that some have wanted Bitcoin to be... I don't begrudge that, but the weirdness of the goal doesn't relieve it from having to have a logically consistent roadmap, or permit it to take down the whole currency in its failure.

Wow, good find.  The Gavinista Big Lie (Bitcoin replaces commercial, not central, banking) goes back much farther than I thought.

Looks like Hearn isn't the only one who was never really a good ideological fit for Bitcoin...and whose misalignment with Bitcoin has existed forever.

I plan on using Bitcoins as a convenient, very-low-cost means of exchange.

I don't plan on saving a significant number of Bitcoins as a store of value.

If you use Bitcoins as a store of value... well, then you're a currency speculator, which can be highly profitable but is also highly risky.  Whether you're hoarding dollars or euros or yen or Bitcoins...

The circular logic is inescapable: 'Bitcoin is a currency, not a store of value; therefore holding Bitcoin as a store of value is currency speculation.'

I guess from Gavin's POV holding gold and silver makes me a "currency speculator."   

[hdbuck]

This sounds like a MBA school failure example: Ignoring your strengths and trying to match one on one with a competitor in an area where you're weakest and the slowest to improve and they're strongest and the fastest to improve.  Especially since considering payment networks as the primary competition for a _currency_ is a bit bizarre. Yet a payment network is all that some have wanted Bitcoin to be... I don't begrudge that, but the weirdness of the goal doesn't relieve it from having to have a logically consistent roadmap, or permit it to take down the whole currency in its failure.

Wow, good find.  The Gavinista Big Lie (Bitcoin replaces commercial, not central, banking) goes back much farther than I thought.

Looks like Hearn isn't the only one who was never really a good ideological fit for Bitcoin...and whose misalignment with Bitcoin has existed forever.

I plan on using Bitcoins as a convenient, very-low-cost means of exchange.

I don't plan on saving a significant number of Bitcoins as a store of value.

If you use Bitcoins as a store of value... well, then you're a currency speculator, which can be highly profitable but is also highly risky.  Whether you're hoarding dollars or euros or yen or Bitcoins...

The circular logic is inescapable: 'Bitcoin is a currency, not a store of value; therefore holding Bitcoin as a store of value is currency speculation.'

I guess from Gavin's POV holding gold and silver makes me a "currency speculator."   

blame it on his "evil little mind"

I don't believe a second, compatible implementation of Bitcoin will ever be a good idea.  So much of the design depends on all nodes getting exactly identical results in lockstep that a second implementation would be a menace to the network.  The MIT license is compatible with all other licenses and commercial uses, so there is no need to rewrite it from a licensing standpoint.

Good idea or not, SOMEBODY will try to mess up the network (or co-opt it for their own use) sooner or later.  They'll either hack the existing code or write their own version, and will be a menace to the network.

I admire the flexibility of the scripts-in-a-transaction scheme, but my evil little mind immediately starts to think of ways I might abuse it.  I could encode all sorts of interesting information in the TxOut script, and if non-hacked clients validated-and-then-ignored those transactions it would be a useful covert broadcast communication channel.

That's a cool feature until it gets popular and somebody decides it would be fun to flood the payment network with millions of transactions to transfer the latest Lady Gaga video to all their friends...

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=195.msg1613#msg1613

[Fatman3001]

I guess from Gavin's POV holding gold and silver makes me a "currency speculator."   

I think it makes you a rapper.

[bargainbin]

...
I guess from Gavin's POV holding gold and silver makes me a "currency speculator."  

From my perspective, it makes you a hapless, a hapless speculator.
Both gold & silver performed somewhat better than IceDrill, which is not to say "well." Horribly, actually.



You're a nice guy, ice, just not too good with money

[Fatman3001]

Yet a payment network is all that some have wanted Bitcoin to be... I don't begrudge that, but the weirdness of the goal doesn't relieve it from having to have a logically consistent roadmap, or permit it to take down the whole currency in its failure.

There is nothing in the post you linked to that suggests Gavin wanted Bitcoin to purely be a payment network. He was simply talking honestly about how he personally was planning to use Bitcoin back in 2010.

Is this part of Core's new "Communication Strategy"?

[ATguy]

If you prove we will not see over 10 TB HDDs in mass production in the following 6 years, then you can get some big blockers more sceptical about scaling above 2 or 4 MB. So go ahead.

You said 10-100TB, which implied a tenfold increase in 6 years. This is not likely.

All we have to do is loudly demand 100TB hard drives be available in 6 years.

Obnixious repetitive complaining will force those lazy, stubborn, greedy bastards at Seagate and Western Digital to come up with a solution.

That's how engineering works, right?   

How dare those bastards censor us! We will start a new subreddit r/100tbHardDrives and show them what everyone wants. Nevermind that the engineers have told us repeatedly told us they can't make 100TB+ HDD's at this time, WE WANT IT AND WE WANT IT NOW.

Trolling at the highest rate   Even before iCEBREAKER trolled I clarified what I really meant if you both cared to read few previous posts in this thread before posting... :

If you prove we will not see over 10 TB HDDs in mass production in the following 6 years, then you can get some big blockers more sceptical about scaling above 2 or 4 MB. So go ahead.

You said 10-100TB, which implied a tenfold increase in 6 years. This is not likely.

Today it is not uncommon people have 2 TB with minority of nerds having 8 TB/16 TB.
It is not unreasonable to expect in 6 years replace the terms in the sentence above with 10 TB, 50 TB/100 TB. This is what I meant. Sorry for confussion if you thought average 55 TB in 6 years.

[Carlton Banks]

...
I guess from Gavin's POV holding gold and silver makes me a "currency speculator."  

From my perspective, it makes you a hapless, a hapless speculator.
Both gold & silver performed somewhat better than IceDrill, which is not to say "well." Horribly, actually.



You're a nice guy, ice, just not too good with money

sssshhh. can you here that? spluttering and wrenching?


the noise? can you hear it? gurgling?


What is it? It's called "the sound the monetary order makes while circling the drain".

[bargainbin]

^^By "monetary order" you mean anachronisms like gold, silver, and priceless bolo ties you rest home visionaries keep "investing" in?
It ain't circling, oldster, moar like clogging the drain

[watashi-kokoto]

Problem: We don't control Bitcoin.

Solution: We try to convince everybody to use our version of Bitcoin.

----------------------

Problem: Too many shills online

Solution: Keep on mining

[ATguy]

Obviously you cant scale to Visa with onchain transactions and keep node decentralization. But it does not mean you cant increase to 6tps or 12tps right now and give users much better experience with Bitcoin so it is well worth while keeping node decentralization, not insignificiant and unnecessary as you say.

...
If the first 3 tps are insignificant then so are the next 3 or 9.  So, from where does your magically occurring putative "much better experience with Bitcoin" originate?

Let's investigate!

UX @ 3tps: pay a competitive fee (about 12 cents) to ensure priority processing even during peak hours' surge charges
UX @ 6tps: pay a competitive fee (about 6 cents) to ensure priority processing even during peak hours' surge charges
UX @ 12tps: pay a competitive fee (about 3 cents) to ensure priority processing even during peak hours' surge charges

Wow, an entire 9 cents of savings and at only the cost of sacrificing Bitcoin's interesting diverse/diffuse/defensible/resilient properties.  Sign me up for that!

Your understanding of fee economy is wrong which is part of the reason you dont see advantage with inceasing number of onchain transactions to the next 3/s soon. Basically when you saturate the block longterm so the backlog cannot clear, the fees rise much more + you limit the number of people who can use Bitcoin. And because there is no working Bitcoin offchain solution yet to serve more Bitcoin users you basically say go people away to altcoins, Bitcoin is only for the few ones paying high fees.

Now if there are Bitcoin offchain solutions ready and working, it is time when you can afford to not increase onchain transactions/second capacity if there is strong reason to loose decentralization substantionally and still you can hope high part of Bitcoin user base will preffer using more Bitcoin offchain solutions instead just going to altcoins.

Thats big difference why it is necessary to increase transactions/second capacity now even by the small 3/s to give more time to the offchains solutions to be completed so people dont need move to other altcoins when Bitcoin become saturated/unussable and without working Bitcoin offchains solutions.

[iCEBREAKER]

I guess from Gavin's POV holding gold and silver makes me a "currency speculator."  

From my perspective, it makes you a hapless, a hapless speculator.
Both gold & silver performed somewhat better than IceDrill, which is not to say "well." Horribly, actually.



You're a nice guy, ice, just not too good with money

Hapless speculator, yes.  "Currency speculator," no.  But don't let the undue constraint of discussing Gavin's actual phrase get in the way of your off-topic personal digs.   

Also, I'm not so hapless as to not notice you cherry-picked a gold graph that only shows its predictable retracement from all-time-highs (there, FTFY).

I'll plead No Contest to being not too good with money, having spend almost all my early BTC on under-performing investments.

Back in 2011-12, my reasoning was in line with Gavin's risk-averse exposure-minimization paradigm (and seeding the ecosystem was irresistible nerd fun).

So I tried to buy just about anything I could with Bitcoin - a lifetime supply of Emergen-C, gold, silver, Icedrill shares, and random stuff from BitMit.

The first thing I learned was that valuable lessons are necessarily expensive!

The second thing I learned was to hold, hold, and then hold some more.

But my gold and silver will never be worthless, and provide value as a hedge against fiat and crypto.  And the Emergen-C lasts forever, as they provide comic relief in the form of exorbitantly expensive ascorbic acid!