.

[countryfree]

So many critics! Hey, Gavin's trying to help!

He wants BTC to grow fast and big, who's against that? PWC's looking into BTC? I say that's good. I wish EY will do the same because those companies can do a lot to raise awareness and confidence in BTC.

If transactions grow by 50% in 2016, that will be slow growth.

[1714956201]

1714956201

[1714956201]

1714956201

[1714956201]

1714956201

[Lauda]

Your 95% "yes" demand (other than being arbitrary and virtually impossible to reach) pretty much guarantees equally bitter, draconian contraposition (the scope of which, I hope, you're starting to appreciate).

Neither is it arbitrary nor 'virtually' impossible to reach. It has nothing to do about my choice but everything to do with consensus in a consensus based protocol. Anything above 95% is acceptable and reachable.

5% can't stand in the way of 95% for long, not without millennia of history and standing armies at your beck and call.
You've turned into the very despots Bitcoin was meant to make irrelevant.

Then there is no problem with 95%. Also it seems that you have the wrong idea of Bitcoin. It was never about the majority being able to push others around, we have fiat for that.

[bargainbin]

Your 95% "yes" demand (other than being arbitrary and virtually impossible to reach) pretty much guarantees equally bitter, draconian contraposition (the scope of which, I hope, you're starting to appreciate).

Neither is it arbitrary nor 'virtually' impossible to reach. It has nothing to do about my choice but everything to do with consensus in a consensus based protocol. Anything above 95% is acceptable and reachable.

Consensus in a consensus based protocol?
Care to link me to the relevant code/pseudocode?

5% can't stand in the way of 95% for long, not without millennia of history and standing armies at your beck and call.
You've turned into the very despots Bitcoin was meant to make irrelevant.

Then there is no problem with 95%. Also it seems that you have the wrong idea of Bitcoin. It was never about the majority being able to push others around, we have fiat for that.

If you think that the minority (the less than five percent) is entitled to dictate its whims to the majority, it's you whose ideas about Bitcoin are off.

[Lauda]

Consensus in a consensus based protocol?
Care to link me to the relevant code/pseudocode?

Are you trying to tell me that Bitcoin is not a consensus based protocol and that consensus is either non existent or not important?

If you think that the minority (the less than five percent) is entitled to dictate its whims to the majority, it's you whose ideas about Bitcoin are off.

Saying that the majority should not be able to push around the minority that does not imply that they should dictate Bitcoin. As I've already said, 95% and above is acceptable due to it causing the 'old chain' to die quickly. With Gavin's proposal you have 75% threshold. Is this 'majority' supposed to dictate the rules for the other 25%?

[bargainbin]

Consensus in a consensus based protocol?
Care to link me to the relevant code/pseudocode?

Are you trying to tell me that Bitcoin is not a consensus based protocol and that consensus is either non existent or not important?

I'm not trying to tell you anything. I'm asking you to back up your assertions by citing the relevant code.
Do it.

If you think that the minority (the less than five percent) is entitled to dictate its whims to the majority, it's you whose ideas about Bitcoin are off.

Saying that the majority should not be able to push around the minority that does not imply that they should dictate Bitcoin. As I've already said, 95% and above is acceptable due to it causing the 'old chain' to die quickly. With Gavin's proposal you have 75% threshold. Is this 'majority' supposed to dictate the rules for the other 25%?

Where are you getting "95% and above is acceptable due to it causing the 'old chain' to die quickly"? Why 95%? WTF does "die quickly" mean?
Do you even code?

[Lauda]

I'm not trying to tell you anything. I'm asking you to back up your assertions by citing the relevant code.
Do it.

Have fun.

Where are you getting "95% and above is acceptable due to it causing the 'old chain' to die quickly"? Why 95%? WTF does "die quickly" mean?
Do you even code?

Quickly means everyone will jump ship as soon as they either realize that they're on the wrong fork or they see that almost everyone else has moved on. The difficulty will be way too high in comparison to the hashrate and will die. If you take the 75% to 25% option then you're essentially splitting the chain into two (not upgrading one). The exact numbers are debatable though.

[figmentofmyass]

So many critics! Hey, Gavin's trying to help!

He wants BTC to grow fast and big, who's against that?

If transactions grow by 50% in 2016, that will be slow growth.

who gives a shit about the speed of transaction growth? how "fast" btc grows is not a metric of its success -- it is only that for get-rich-quickers who think dreams of adoption (err---future bubbles) are paramount to securing the blockchain and keeping it decentralized.

if people simply write off bandwidth concerns (and therefore node health) because they are more interested in "growth" than the system's ability to "handle that growth" (i.e. scalability).....then how few nodes is too few that they will finally admit that bitcoin has failed to retain any semblance of decentralization? by then, it will likely be too late.

i'm amazed that people around here still push the idea that "increasing block size limit" increases scalability. sorry, but throughput =/= scalability. go ahead and see if bitcoin can handle 2,000 transactions per second like Visa. increase throughput to the max, see what happens. and then continue to babble about how increased load on the system made it more scalable. (VS, i'm looking at you)
https://www.google.com/search?q=definition+scalability&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
https://www.google.com/search?q=definition+scalability&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=definition+throughput

sometimes i wish bitcoin never "bubbled" in april/november 2013. the get-rich-quick assholes may ruin everything, because they play right into the hands of industry stakeholders that have zero interest in keeping bitcoin decentralized.

gavin's biggest problem (assuming we don't try to ponder what his more nefarious intentions might be) is his optimism. he has no interest in planning for worst-case scenarios -- that is an abomination for any software/engineering project. i've never once seen him make any compelling argument for why raising the block size limit (and doing so aggressively, as in the case of XT) is remotely urgent for the health of bitcoin. nothing but fear mongering about "omg blocks are full! what if small time newbie investors have to pay more than a couple cents (or nothing) to send a transaction?! the horror?!"

and at the end of the day, what he has said is completely untechnical and fails to address the many legitimate technical concerns of Core developers. bullshit like "I really, really don't understand this attitude-- I woulda thunk you were old enough to be confident that technology DOES improve. In fits and starts, but over the long term it definitely gets better."
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1164429.msg12269256#msg12269256

well, that technology improves does not address the arguments that current infrastructure may already be insufficient to force more capacity on the system (e.g. upload bottlenecks, for one). and if not, the only sensible way to go about increasing throughput requirements is to do so with respect for technological and infrastructural limitations -- not come up with idealistic "fixes" (to fix what?) with the intention of rolling back changes once something goes terribly wrong.

we already know that based on the current validation architecture, that at 2MB block size, an attack can be structured so that a single transaction can take longer to validate than for multiple subsequent blocks to be found.

but i dont see Classic devs offering a fix for that. in fact, it seems Toomim isn't even willing to properly maintain the repository -- he wants to push the hard fork but do zero real work. instead of preparing Classic for seg-wit functionality, he plans to simply copy everything from Core once it's done. is this really the guy you want leading bitcoin development? he can change a constant -- great -- but his plan is to copy more skilled developers for everything else?
https://imgur.com/gallery/wbsxJ

this whole thing is a sick fucking joke. i've never been so ashamed to be associated with this community. like chickens with heads cut off.

[bargainbin]

I'm not trying to tell you anything. I'm asking you to back up your assertions by citing the relevant code.
Do it.

Have fun.

Relevant files and line #s plz, don't be flippant.

Where are you getting "95% and above is acceptable due to it causing the 'old chain' to die quickly"? Why 95%? WTF does "die quickly" mean?
Do you even code?

Quickly means everyone will jump ship as soon as they either realize that they're on the wrong fork or they see that almost everyone else has moved on. The difficulty will be way too high in comparison to the hashrate and will die. If you take the 75% to 25% option then you're essentially splitting the chain into two (not upgrading one). The exact numbers are debatable though.

TL;DR: You don't code. You're pulling numbers out of your ass. I doubt you can even read C.

[gmaxwell]

So many critics! Hey, Gavin's trying to help!

So were the doctors who performed frontal lobotomies on unruly children.

The Bitcoin market price doesn't seem to think much of his help.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

So many critics! Hey, Gavin's trying to help!

So were the doctors who performed frontal lobotomies on unruly children.

The Bitcoin market price doesn't seem to think much of his help.

The market is still made up of Bitcoiners. Maybe your strategic alliances spooked 'em?

[figmentofmyass]

I'm not trying to tell you anything. I'm asking you to back up your assertions by citing the relevant code.
Do it.

Have fun.

Relevant files and line #s plz, don't be flippant.

Where are you getting "95% and above is acceptable due to it causing the 'old chain' to die quickly"? Why 95%? WTF does "die quickly" mean?
Do you even code?

Quickly means everyone will jump ship as soon as they either realize that they're on the wrong fork or they see that almost everyone else has moved on. The difficulty will be way too high in comparison to the hashrate and will die. If you take the 75% to 25% option then you're essentially splitting the chain into two (not upgrading one). The exact numbers are debatable though.

TL;DR: You don't code. You don't know shit. I doubt you can even read C.

irrelevant. this isn't about code -- that's a complete strawman. whether or not you are a coder does not make you an authority on the economics of an experimental system. consensus is about economic incentive. that is game theory, not computer programming. there is no "code" that defines what works for aligning human incentives.

95% is a past threshold for consensus that worked. the idea -- and I believe this is in line with the "consensus mechanism" stated in the whitepaper and the definition of "consensus" -- is to establish as close to 100% agreement as possible, and to prevent any changes that do not approach 100% agreement.

i'd argue that the burden is on the XT/Classic crowd to prove why 75% a) can be considered consensus in the context of the "consensus mechanism" stated in the whitepaper. From a historical--as relates to bitcoin-- and linguistic standpoint, calling 75% "consensus" is completely laughable).... b) from a game theory perspective, why the 75% chain (or 51% chain for that matter) will cause the minority chain to be orphaned (dead) -- including a thorough assessment of incentives, including the relative hashing power increase netted by miners who remain on the minority chain.

i've never seen a thorough game theory analysis done by "big blockers" -- only baseless assertions that "derrrrp, ofc if one chain reaches 75% at some point the economic majority will quickly crush all opposition!1!!!" that's not an adequate explanation for anyone with basic intelligence. clearly it's enough for some of the chickens with their heads cut off running around on this forum, though.

[figmentofmyass]

Let me guess, Blockstream sent out an internal memo telling all of its paid developer shills to troll this thread!  

what, and you're a Coinbase shill? maybe an NSA shill?

#datlogic 

[figmentofmyass]

Maybe Gavin threw a wild proposal out there like Bitcoin-XT for the purpose of making a much more conservative proposal like this increase to 2MB looks perfectly acceptable.

more likely, he and hearn overestimated their ability to push for a block size increase on purely political/argumentative (rather than technical) grounds. i have no doubt he would have preferred the XT bloatchain. after all, for Gavin, capacity is all the matters. scalability be damned.

[bargainbin]

I'm not trying to tell you anything. I'm asking you to back up your assertions by citing the relevant code.
Do it.

Have fun.

Relevant files and line #s plz, don't be flippant.

Where are you getting "95% and above is acceptable due to it causing the 'old chain' to die quickly"? Why 95%? WTF does "die quickly" mean?
Do you even code?

Quickly means everyone will jump ship as soon as they either realize that they're on the wrong fork or they see that almost everyone else has moved on. The difficulty will be way too high in comparison to the hashrate and will die. If you take the 75% to 25% option then you're essentially splitting the chain into two (not upgrading one). The exact numbers are debatable though.

TL;DR: You don't code. You don't know shit. I doubt you can even read C.

irrelevant. this isn't about code -- that's a complete strawman. whether or not you are a coder does not make you an authority on the economics of an experimental system. consensus is about economic incentive. that is game theory, not computer programming. there is no "code" that defines what works for aligning human incentives.

Was responding to this:

... Neither is [95%] arbitrary nor 'virtually' impossible to reach. It has nothing to do about my choice but everything to do with consensus in a consensus based protocol. Anything above 95% is acceptable and reachable.

If you feel that Lauda's alluding to game theory, feel free to cite that. Forgive me if I don't take the word of random_guy_from_the_internet on trust.

95% is a past threshold for consensus that worked.

Worked when, where and how? Also define what *you* mean by "consensus," everyone seems to have teir own opinions.

the idea -- and I believe this is in line with the "consensus mechanism" stated in the whitepaper and the definition of "consensus" -- is to establish as close to 100% agreement as possible, and to prevent any changes that do not approach 100% agreement.

Can you please cite the relevant passage? Again, it's simply rude of you to make me search for the text you're referencing.

i'd argue that the burden is on the XT/Classic crowd to prove why 75% a) can be considered consensus in the context of the "consensus mechanism" stated in the whitepaper. From a historical--as relates to bitcoin-- and linguistic standpoint, calling 75% "consensus" is completely laughable)....

cite the fucking relevant passage plz.

b) from a game theory perspective, why the 75% chain (or 51% chain for that matter) will cause the minority chain to be orphaned (dead) -- including a thorough assessment of incentives, including the relative hashing power increase netted by miners who remain on the minority chain.

Huh? "from a game theory perspective"? WTF are you taking about? Am enjoying the a) and b) list bit tho. Very acædemic of U.

i've never seen a thorough game theory analysis done by "big blockers" -- only baseless assertions that "derrrrp, ofc if one chain reaches 75% at some point the economic majority will quickly crush all opposition!1!!!" that's not an adequate explanation for anyone with basic intelligence. clearly it's enough for some of the chickens with their heads cut off running around on this forum, though.

Bro, unless you can be more specific than "herp, Gaem Theorie!!1!" I'm gonna have to put you on ignore.
Don't waste my time.

[TooDumbForBitcoin]

So many critics! Hey, Gavin's trying to help!

So were the doctors who performed frontal lobotomies on unruly children.

The Bitcoin market price doesn't seem to think much of his help.

How do you know the market price is not dropping in response to the Blockstream's selling of the blockchain to Price Waterhouse?

You have an infinite number of news stories to choose from and an infinite number of price movements.  Are you sure you got this correlation right?  How about the causality?

Do you check the market price after each 10 lines of new code?  20?  100?

[Jokot66]

At least the price of bitcoin which started going down as a result of his announcement, has started rebounding. I think there is no bigger individual than the bitcoin project. so much has been invested in it that nobody will look on for the whole thing to tumble down.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

So many critics! Hey, Gavin's trying to help!

So were the doctors who performed frontal lobotomies on unruly children.

The Bitcoin market price doesn't seem to think much of his help.

How do you know the market price is not dropping in response to the Blockstream's selling of the blockchain to Price Waterhouse?

You have an infinite number of news stories to choose from and an infinite number of price movements.  Are you sure you got this correlation right?  How about the causality?

Do you check the market price after each 10 lines of new code?  20?  100?

I just finished asking that:

So many critics! Hey, Gavin's trying to help!

So were the doctors who performed frontal lobotomies on unruly children.

The Bitcoin market price doesn't seem to think much of his help.

The market is still made up of Bitcoiners. Maybe your strategic alliances spooked 'em?

Maybe you have better luck than I did. GMax doesn't talk to me anymore.

[figmentofmyass]

If you feel that Lauda's alluding to game theory, feel free to cite that. Forgive me if I don't take the word of random_guy_from_the_internet on trust.

i don't need to cite anything. i was expanding on what Lauda said. in any case, i am asserting that this is the relevant issue. alternatively, you could explain how it has fuck all to do with "coding."

Worked when, where and how? Also define what *you* mean by "consensus," everyone seems to have teir own opinions.

one example is BIP66. an intentional fork would, for example, not be successful if it results in multiple surviving blockchains, thereby breaking bitcoin. i defined what i meant by consensus:

the "consensus mechanism" stated in the whitepaper and the definition of "consensus" -- is to establish as close to 100% agreement as possible, and to prevent any changes that do not approach 100% agreement.

Can you please cite the relevant passage? Again, it's simply rude of you to make me search for the text you're referencing.

i'd say it's more rude to insult people for "not being a coder" when it's 100% irrelevant. if you haven't read bitcoin's whitepaper, then it's obvious why you haven't contemplated what consensus is, nor why it is necessary for bitcoin to function. refer to "consensus mechanism" in the whitepaper, relate it to the English definition of "consensus" and historically (as relates to bitcoin) how it has been used and subsequently achieved (e.g. BIP66).

cite the fucking relevant passage plz.

Nodes can leave and rejoin the network at will, accepting the proof-of-work chain as proof of what happened while they were gone. They vote with their CPU power, expressing their acceptance of valid blocks by working on extending them and rejecting invalid blocks by refusing to work on them. Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism.

Huh? "from a game theory perspective"? WTF are you taking about? Am enjoying the a) and b) list bit tho. Very acædemic of U.

you realize the bitcoin system is an economy, right?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_theory

Bro, unless you can be more specific than "herp, Gaem Theorie!!1!" I'm gonna have to put you on ignore.
Don't waste my time.

look, bro. clearly you're a fucking idiot if this is your grasp of economics. i took several more minutes than i should have answering your retard 101 questions, knowing full well that you know absolutely nothing about bitcoin or how it works.

your comments to Lauda asserted that economic incentives can be determined by code. please explain to me how that works.

an "economy" is "a system especially of interaction and exchange" -- that implies human rationality and incentive. so yes, if you think you can analyze the idea of "economic consensus" with no regard for modelling conflict and cooperation among intelligent rational decision-makers, you'd be dead wrong.

please feel free to ignore me, though. apparently you're just another retard that picks apart others' arguments without the slightest understanding of them, and never once proves a point of your own. you just incessantly ask irrelevant questions rather than address the substance of what is being said. this is a classically dishonest style of argument.

seriously, learn to use Google rather than forcing everyone to explain every little idea for you like a small child.

[BellaBitBit]

Can someone explain a bit more, I am not totally sure what all of this means.  How far or how close to Satoshi's original plan is this proposal?  Does it have to be a hard fork at 2MB or is it possible to be a soft fork?

[bargainbin]

<irrelevant spergy prattle redacted>

Whoops, nothing left...
Into ignore void you go then. But don't be a sad, will check on u every now and again

@BellaBitBit: block size changes must be hard forks.