Bitcoin round table

[chennan]

Bitcoin wasn't created and intended for only rich people... it was created and intended to allow people to be their own banks and freedom of the Fed. 

It wasn't and the rich people can't really force anything. There is no central authority. I've updated my post.

This is really not a good way to explain it. There is no voting whatsoever. Bitcoin is about individual sovereignty. People (who run full nodes) can't be coerced into accepting a rule violation except economically.

but the whole idea of this type of small group of people/miners making decisions about what should happen with block sizes and all pisses me off just as much as a small group of men in the Fed making crucial decision that will change the whole economy for all of us "ignorant civilians" that can't make a decision for our selves. 

The industry is trying to work with the developers to find the best solutions. What exactly do you want here? Random aliases on the forums and reddit deciding? They aren't changing any fundamental rules, nor would the users agree on it.

I think this "industry", that I guess has been created, should propose a certain list of electable proposals that people can vote on.  Now, how we would be able to do this is another topic, and could possibly do this by a form election system that uses a sort of "block chain" as well.  This way people can see, verify, and confirm votes that are being submitted.

I feel the best way to do this is to hold an "election" of some sort, and probably would be better to do all of this before the halving begins in the summer.  I just feel that this is the best solution to all of this... Then, whenever bitcoin reaches another problem in the future, devs can then hold another "election", and so on.

People who are on here and pay attention to bitcoin in general aren't stupid... I feel that when deciding between multiple block size proposals, a democratically elected proposal is the best choice.

[Lauda]

I think this "industry", that I guess has been created, should propose a certain list of electable proposals that people can vote on.  Now, how we would be able to do this is another topic, and could possibly do this by a form election system that uses a sort of "block chain" as well.  This way people can see, verify, and confirm votes that are being submitted.
-snip-

This proposal, that creates more complexity in the system, needs its own thread though.

People who are on here and pay attention to bitcoin in general aren't stupid... I feel that when deciding between multiple block size proposals, a democratically elected proposal is the best choice.

That is definitely not the case. It is not that hard to fool people to support something (take Classic for example) that isn't needed/is unsafe/other.

If the block size debate has demonstrated anything, it's that there's a fundamental lack of understanding about how Bitcoin actually works. If you're going to the moon, would you like your spaceship built by a handful of informed engineers, or by the average tax payer?

[calkob]

can someone explain to me what is wrong with the classic proposal, i currently run a core node and am thinking of running classic, is it not the case that the 1mb cap is slowing bitcoin down?  how can we move to mass adoption if we dont up scale bitcoin.....?

[Amph]

that chart johnyJ displayed needs changing..

the "core" nodes should be separated out so that the ones running the most recent update are categorised as deciding on the new direction.. and those with older versions of core are categorised as "undecided".

then atleast it would be a fairer view of current situation. because not all people running core right now want to stick to 1mb so shouldnt be shelved into the same category that indicates they want to stick to 1mb.

surprisingly for once Lauda is using stats that is more representable of the network.. where only 0.7% increased in favour of core, but 9.7% decided on classic based on the changes between the 2 dates lauda linked

so here is a better representation, based on lauda's data (its great to slap a guy in the face with a fish, especially when using his own fish to do it)

this make more sense, so it seems that the majority the undecided want to remain with current 1mb limit, if they remain undecided

i means they can not remain undecided forever, there must be a deadline right?

[franky1]

this make more sense, so it seems that the majority the undecided want to remain with current 1mb limit, if they remain undecided

i means they can not remain undecided forever, there must be a deadline right?

until they update.. we cannot judge what direction they want to go. so assuming they want to stay is unfair.. leaving them in the undecided category is more fair. but when they update then the undecided will make their intentions known.. untill then.. we just dont know so should not assume

[chennan]

-snip-

If the block size debate has demonstrated anything, it's that there's a fundamental lack of understanding about how Bitcoin actually works. If you're going to the moon, would you like your spaceship built by a handful of informed engineers, or by the average tax payer?

I guess it's really an "agree to disagree" type of thing. 

I've seen that scenario being used a lot, and how I see it is that this isn't the case... Certain issues that need to be fixed can be fixed in a number of different ways, and depending on the situation could call for different tactics to solve it.

So if you want someone to represent you in government, would you want a handful of "informed" government officials to make that decision for you?  Of course not.

If you were one of the well informed engineers building that spaceship to the moon and it needed to be done in a certain amount of time; would you like your well "informed" bosses, that knows they can't afford more engineers, to tell you that you should work overtime to build it without pay? Of course not.

To just simply accept something because your "superiors" should know more than you, and hence need to keep your mouth shut is what a dictatorship is...

Fact of the matter is that there are multiple ways to reach a solution for any problem... I just feel that having this "Satoshi round table" isn't the right way to go about things for this specific problem. So again... agree to disagree.

[desired_username]

Sorry if it was posted:

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/458x1w/who_is_who_in_the_signed_fud_letter_pushed_by/

Seems like part of that $50M borgstream funding went straight to bribing idiots and spreading FUD in media.

[desired_username]

can someone explain to me what is wrong with the classic proposal, i currently run a core node and am thinking of running classic, is it not the case that the 1mb cap is slowing bitcoin down?  how can we move to mass adoption if we dont up scale bitcoin.....?

The main problem is that it's not under  the control of Borgstream. -s

[Lauda]

-snip-

Stop reading /r/btc, thank me later. Apparently everyone that disagrees is a 'nobody' but Gavin, Rizun and Garzik are relevant 'gods'. Enough of the attacks already.

Charlie Lee
Wang Chun - F2Pool

They are "nobodies" according to these ignorant fools. The user who created that post is "blockstreamcoin". I don't need to further comment this.

The main problem is that it's not under  the control of Borgstream. -s

Another employed account? Interesting.

I've seen that scenario being used a lot, and how I see it is that this isn't the case... Certain issues that need to be fixed can be fixed in a number of different ways, and depending on the situation could call for different tactics to solve it.

1. There is no issue at hand; 2. There is no "fix" from Classic; 3. There is no plan of action from Classic aside from 'copy-paste the works of Core'. What "ways" are you exactly talking about?

Fact of the matter is that there are multiple ways to reach a solution for any problem... I just feel that having this "Satoshi round table" isn't the right way to go about things for this specific problem. So again... agree to disagree.

The block size debate has been discussed for years. "Satoshi round table" isn't making any decisions, they have just voiced their opinion. What are you talking about?

[bargainbin]

...

If the block size debate has demonstrated anything, it's that there's a fundamental lack of understanding about how Bitcoin actually works. If you're going to the moon, would you like your spaceship built by a handful of informed engineers, or by the average tax payer?

You keep quoting that...

...
Nah, what's going on here is a bunch of grasping careerists want to send Mercury-Redstone V1 buzzbomb to the moon, and Wernher told them "lol, ur stupit, NO."
Which brings up another point: comparing a few lines of code to rocket surgery.
No issues with galaxy-scale self-importance, nope.
P.S. Lauda, I'm yet to see a line of code from you. Til I do, am assuming you're one of the ignorant unwashed you love to shit on.

[chennan]

I've seen that scenario being used a lot, and how I see it is that this isn't the case... Certain issues that need to be fixed can be fixed in a number of different ways, and depending on the situation could call for different tactics to solve it.

1. There is no issue at hand; 2. There is no "fix" from Classic; 3. There is no plan of action from Classic aside from 'copy-paste the works of Core'. What "ways" are you exactly talking about?

1. Really? No issue at all to speak of? ; 2. Agree to disagree ; 3.  If you are saying that 1 & 2 are true, then why would there be a need for a "copy-paste" from Core... What exactly are you talking about?  If there is no issue at hand, then there wouldn't be a "debate" at all...   There is most certainly a debate.

Fact of the matter is that there are multiple ways to reach a solution for any problem... I just feel that having this "Satoshi round table" isn't the right way to go about things for this specific problem. So again... agree to disagree.

The block size debate has been discussed for years. "Satoshi round table" isn't making any decisions, they have just voiced their opinion. What are you talking about?

Look, I know this has been discussed for a while... and from what I'm gathering is that you are in support to allow this "round table" to be the only ones who have their voices heard, and to have this "round table" be the only ones to fix and build "the spaceship going to the moon" that you have quoted before, comparing them to the "well informed engineers" and us to "tax payers".

[Lauda]

1. Really? No issue at all to speak of? ; 2. Agree to disagree ; 3.  If you are saying that 1 & 2 are true, then why would there be a need for a "copy-paste" from Core... What exactly are you talking about?  If there is no issue at hand, then there wouldn't be a "debate" at all...   There is most certainly a debate.

1. There is no issue right now. Transactions are going through and the network is functioning properly. Is this not the case?
2. Saying "agree to disagree" doesn't invalidate my claim, it just tells me that you have no arguments. A 2 MB block size proposal is not a solution, it is kick of the can down the road.
3. You do realize that the development is not solely focused on the scaleability?  Their announcement states the following:

In parallel, we will focus development on features that have been requested by miners and companies for a long time now, and that will help Bitcoin scale on-chain:
Faster block validation, Faster block propagation

By "focus development" do they just mean "copy more vigorously"?

Look, I know this has been discussed for a while... and from what I'm gathering is that you are in support to allow this "round table" to be the only ones who have their voices heard, and to have this "round table" be the only ones to fix and build "the spaceship going to the moon" that you have quoted before, comparing them to the "well informed engineers" and us to "tax payers".

I never said that the people who signed that statement were engineers.

[franky1]

1. There is no issue right now. Transactions are going through and the network is functioning properly. Is this not the case?

transactions are not going through in 10 minutes.. some are waiting an hour
are you that blind

2. Saying "agree to disagree" doesn't invalidate my claim, it just tells me that you have no arguments. A 2 MB block size proposal is not a solution, it is kick of the can down the road.

segwit is not a scalability solution. it is just a temporary gimmick.. removing 70bytes of signature one day and later adding more bytes later with the other features.
its like going on a diet for a week and then going to an all-you-can-eat for a month

3. You do realize that the development is not solely focused on the scaleability?  Their announcement states the following:

yep they are more interested in making their premined sidechains be instantly worth the same price as bitcoin (greedy BStards). their aim is a firesale, bait and switching people over to their premines.

they dont care about bitcoin scaleability.. they want their billion dollar premine profits, by making bitcoin unscalable and costly to use to switch people over

lauda is still on the mindset that its a core vs classic.. he needs to learn that CORE can, should and eventually need to move to 2mb.. even if its a 2mb+segwit. that the only real debate is WHEN..

[chennan]

-snip-

All I'm trying to say is that no one will be able to know what the full effect will be down the road.  It's still all very experimental, and to say that Classic is the only proposal that will ever be needed from here on out is not very smart.  I know that the 2 MB proposal is a "kick the can down the road" approach, nor am I saying that I support that... I just know that as more blocks continue to max out, and confirmation times continually slow down as more people are using bitcoins; the worse it is for bitcoin.

I really wasn't trying to argue necessarily about the block size debate itself... I was just trying to get my point across that governance of Bitcoin is progressively getting more sketchy to me and seems to become more centralized.  I know that word pisses off a lot of people and I'm not necessarily saying that it is full out centralized just yet... but you can't doubt that it has slowly but surely gotten to be that way.

I just don't necessarily like when people say that "X" is the only way to go and there is no other alternative because that is just the way it is.  Even though this problem doesn't seem like much right now, the more people start using bitcoin, the bigger this problem becomes... so it's better to fix it now... am I not right?

[Lauda]

I just don't necessarily like when people say that "X" is the only way to go and there is no other alternative because that is just the way it is.  Even though this problem doesn't seem like much right now, the more people start using bitcoin, the bigger this problem becomes... so it's better to fix it now... am I not right?

Okay "X is better than Y", where X represents Segwit and Y represents Classic/2MB blocks. That's the right way to see it then I guess. You're right, it will become a bigger problem. However, scaling via the block size will never be able to solve this problem because it is very inefficient. Here are some quick calculations that I did a while back:

Let's say that 700 million people use Bitcoin (that's ~10% of the World population, even less), and that they all make only 1 transaction per day. Transaction size is averaging half a kilobyte today (source Bitcoin Wiki).
700 million transactions * 0.5 = 350 million Kilobyte = ~350 GB/ 144 (blocks per day) = ~2.4 Gigabyte per block. This is only if they make a single transaction per day (which is unlikely, as the average would be much higher with adoption on this scale).

350x365 = 127 750 GB per year (i.e. 127 TB). This can be avoided with the second layer.

[franky1]

Let's say that 700 million people use Bitcoin (that's ~10% of the World population, even less), and that they all make only 1 transaction per day. Transaction size is averaging half a kilobyte today (source Bitcoin Wiki).
700 million transactions * 0.5 = 350 million Kilobyte = ~350 GB/ 144 (blocks per day) = ~2.4 Gigabyte per block. This is only if they make a single transaction per day (which is unlikely, as the average would be much higher with adoption on this scale).
350x365 = 127 750 GB per year (i.e. 127 TB). This can be avoided with the second layer.

pulling random numbers out of your ass,,(700mill users, 1 tx a day) where did you even get these numbers from

your putting a utopian dream of 20+ years time, to try defending blockstreams greed of 2016 decisions.. really!
your numbers have nothing to do with any possible reality of 2016-2018, get a grip

the debate for the next 2 years is basically 2mb+segwit (approx 4mb capacity emulation)

currently 1mb allows 2000 tx(average) a block. 144 blocks a day.

thats basically acting as if 288,000 transactions a day.. you can interpret it as only 288,000 doing 1 transaction a day or 2million people making a transaction every 7 days.

with 2mb. thats upto 576,000 tx a day potential.

with 2mb segwit. its initially 1million tx a day, and then downplayed to 500,000 once things like payment codes and other added variables/constants added to the tx.

with 1mb segwit its initially 500,000 tx a day and then downplayed to 250,000 once  things like payment codes and other added variables/constants added to the tx.

[desired_username]

The BlockstreamCore apologists should open their eyes.

Bitcoin needs a fork or its network effect will disappear.

[tommygunyeah]

No and no! Centralization will destroy everything bitcoin stands for. I don't see any purpose in stimulating this sort of iniciatives!

[desired_username]

No and no! Centralization will destroy everything bitcoin stands for. I don't see any purpose in stimulating this sort of iniciatives!

What if I told you that keeping bitcoin crippled will assure the centralization (and later failure) of bitcoin as it doesn't allow more participants to hit the network?

Consider that currently about 1-2M people own BTC. There are about !!3300M!! internet connected users currently.

The current infrastructure can serve a lot higher limit than 1MB.

Blockstream is incentivized to keep the protocol crippled and under their control, so sidestepping them is highly important.
If it won't happen bitcoin will remain centralized.

Also, please consider that centralization/decentralization is not an exact property, but a spectrum.

[Lauda]

The current infrastructure can serve a lot higher limit than 1MB.

It can't. Stop spreading false information.

No and no! Centralization will destroy everything bitcoin stands for. I don't see any purpose in stimulating this sort of iniciatives!

I don't see how this is "centralization"? Do you know what that means?