Satoshi Roundtable Thoughts - Gavin Andresen

[LiteCoinGuy]

i would like to see cores hardfork sooner than mid 2017 too... 

[franky1]

Personally I find it very amusing that years ago when Gavin appeared on CNN (or CNBC - I forget which) with Amir and Amir was talking about Bitcoin being used for "micro-transactions" Gavin was very quick to interrupt Amir and say "no - Bitcoin is not suitable for that".

So when he was "the lead dev" it wasn't suitable for buying coffees but now that he lost his throne and wants it back suddenly we need to be buying coffees with Bitcoin.

Stop being sucked in by a narcissist guys (he still calls himself the "Chief Scientist" of Bitcoin for fuck's sake and he barely even contributes any code at all).

stop defending the CEO of blockstream corporation. as its kind of funny that all the same insults you mention to others can apply to adam back aswell.

please click the link and tell me where gavin even mentions cups of coffee..
instead he is mentioning about the lack of security of sidechains that wont be backed up by the hashrate of bitcoin.

imagine it this way 7000 nodes. and a couple thousand of those desides to use prune mode.
now theres there would be only 5000 full archival nodes.
then segwit comes in. and people opt for no witness mode. again reducing the full node count.

then sidechains come in and people swap bitcoins for liquids and sidechain x,y,z and no longer feel the need to protect bitcoin because they are going to stick with using the sidechains for the rest of their life.

and now the node count is even less..

people become reliant on the 12 exchanges to protect the liquid arbitrage network
people will rely on the hubs that hold the LN transactions that could easily just transfer all the funds to themself

so how about you talk about the code instead of the politics. after all i know you want bitcoin to be a reserve currency, but if blockstream have their way. Liquid will become the reserve

[CIYAM]

i would like to see cores hardfork sooner than mid 2017 too...  

Why are you so impatient?

The supposed "full blocks" are not full (there are empty blocks being mined every single day) and most of the tx "backlog" are just spam txs.

It is obvious that the recent flood of txs are "attacks" rather than reflecting actual normal user demand.

[CIYAM]

stop defending the CEO of blockstream corporation.

Typical post from you (a paid shill and an idiot) - I didn't even mention anything to do with the CEO of Blockstream.

May I suggest you take some lessons in "reading comprehension".

Gavin is the guy who has made this all political in his quest for power.

[chopstick]

Gavin gave up all his power, but now he suddenly wants it back? Really? Seems like you're grasping at straws to me.

Blockstream are the ones pushing their agenda and ignoring the wishes of everyone else.

[CIYAM]

Gavin gave up all his power, but now he suddenly wants it back? Really? Seems like you're grasping at straws to me.

Then why on earth does Gavin jump from one project to another in order to take back control of the development with a hard-fork?

Who is the "lead dev" other than Gavin that is behind these projects?

(oh - and we can see what happens when Gavin doesn't get what he wants - Hearn quits and next will be Garzik)

[Bit_Happy]

i would like to see cores hardfork sooner than mid 2017 too...  

Time's up!
Endless uncertainty makes mainstream Bitcoin adoption much less likely. Where is the clear path to ending the debate and settling on a solution?

[CIYAM]

Time's up!

Because you said so?

And who exactly are you to be in charge of when "time's up" eh?

(another paid shill no doubt)

[franky1]

stop defending the CEO of blockstream corporation.

Typical post from you (a paid shill and an idiot) - I didn't even mention anything to do with the CEO of Blockstream.

May I suggest you take some lessons in "reading comprehension".

awww you cannot correct me so resort to insults.

u have defended blockstream for months. care to take a lesson in memory retention.

and by the way why are you asking litecoinguy 'why so impatient'.. again check your memory, because 2mb has been a debate since summer 2015.. infact even satoshi mentioned about 2mb in 2010.. so its not really a quick decision that has only came about in january...
infact it was never even gavins idea in the first place. but i really do love how your trying so hard to turn a code debate into a political debate.

you blockstream lovers love the contention as it makes you look important because if just 6% of the community refuse to upgrade then blockstream wins. your most definetly one of the 6%.. even at 90% you would not be tempted to join the majority to help it get to 95%. you have made it obvious your in the contention camp.

[CIYAM]

infact even satoshi mentioned about 2mb in 2010..

Really - care to quote that?

And even if he did mention something about increasing the size after having reduced it to 1MB why is that relevant now? Satoshi left the project (also presumably if you are going to invoke his name then you should be calling for 64MB blocks as that was the limit originally created by him).

As I stated - if Gavin will announce his retirement then I'll accept 2MB blocks (I don't actually care about the block size limit being 1 or 2 MB but I don't want Gavin allowed to be in charge as virtually no-one wants to work with him).

[franky1]

infact even satoshi mentioned about 2mb in 2010..

Really - care to quote that?

And even if he did mention something about increasing the size after having reducing it to 1MB why is that relevant now - Satoshi left the project!

As I stated - if Gavin will announce his retirement then I'll accept 2MB blocks (I don't actually care about the block size limit being 1 or 2 MB but I don't want Gavin allowed to be in charge as virtually no-one wants to work with him).

contratulations you are half way to being on the mindset of the community,

now take this mind blowing thought
if, imagine it... if CORE put in 2mb.....

wow.. imagine it.. core adding in 2mb..
your mind must be blowing a gasket at that thought..

now if core has 2mb then there is no contention.. and gavin wont "own bitcoin"

imagine it,. have a cup of coffee, sit back and eat a biscuit and imagine the possibility of having 2mb included in core. included in bitcoinJ included in all the other 12 different codebases..

i know.. it blows apart your gavin vs adam mindset.. but think of the possibility of there being no gavin vs adam debate.. and a simple 1mb vs 2mb for the whole community debate

as for scaling up bitcoin being mentioned as far back as 2010

It can be phased in, like:

if (blocknumber > 115000)
    maxblocksize = largerlimit

It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.

When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade.

[CIYAM]

imagine it,. have a cup of coffee, sit back and eat a biscuit and imagine the possibility of having 2mb included in core. included in bitcoinJ included in all the other 12 different codebases..

Seriously - do you really think that doubling the size of the blocks is going to allow everyone to buy coffees for Bitcoin?

Do you think if we made it 20MB that would do it?

Or maybe 64MB?

Or?

Sorry - it won't scale with that approach at all - so caving in to the pressure of mostly stupidity to increase the block size to 2MB might have to be the strategy to keep Gavin at bay but it actually doesn't do anything to solve the fundamental scaling problems at all.

[CIYAM]

Also - I can guarantee you that even if Bitcoin Core decides to do a 2MB fork due to the current "political pressure" Gavin will immediately then start up with a 4MB (or more) hard-fork proposal.

Perhaps you'd like to take a bet on that?

[franky1]

imagine it,. have a cup of coffee, sit back and eat a biscuit and imagine the possibility of having 2mb included in core. included in bitcoinJ included in all the other 12 different codebases..

Seriously - do you really think that doubling the size of the blocks is going to allow everyone to buy coffees for Bitcoin?

who said anything about bitcoin being used to buy coffee??

again you have not read what gavin wrote and ignored the context. and are meandering the debate totally off to the most weirdest tangent you can find.

my comment was about you taking a break for 5 minutes to think.. you know let your brain work and process some thoughts

[CIYAM]

you know let your brain work and process some thoughts

Why don't you try and just put forward a coherent argument as to why we need bigger blocks when the Chinese miners are still creating empty blocks every day (clearly they don't think there is any need to even fill up the blocks as it is)?

I do hope that you realise that if you make the block size 2MB those same mining pools that are creating blocks with 1 tx (just the block reward) will continue to do just that (and in fact you might encourage more of those blocks as they might decide that tx propagation is too much of a hassle with bigger blocks).

So the bigger you make the block size - the smaller the blocks will end up - what are you going to do then?

(btw - can you try and at least "pretend to be intelligent" rather than just insulting?)

[franky1]

Also - I can guarantee you that even if Bitcoin Core decides to do a 2MB fork due to the current "political pressure" Gavin will immediately then start up with a 4MB (or more) hard-fork proposal.

Perhaps you'd like to take a bet on that?

first of all lets say that a 4mb was needed in 2020 (4 years time)

if core implements 2mb with a 6 month grace.. meaning active by christmas this year. then no, a new debate wont begin until mid 2019
because people will then know 6 month prep work is ok.


but with core devs delaying it untill the summer of 2017.. then by the time 2018 comes people will need to start planning on more again because they know it takes 2 years (hoping for a 2020 second fork) for the core devs to do something...

so again its the core devs causing delays and contention that is causing the endless debate.

[CIYAM]

first of all lets say that a 4mb was needed in 2020 (4 years time)

Let's me just point out that you have zero evidence of this (so it is a silly hypothetical).

Now let's get back to the real issue - there are "single tx blocks" (just the block reward) getting created every day by the major mining pools.

How are you going to fix that?

(of course you cannot fix that as you can't enforce the mining pools to include txs)

So you can increase the block size to 100MB and still end up with blocks with only 1 tx (the block reward).

Do you see how futile the idea of increasing block size is yet?

[franky1]

Why don't you try and just put forward a coherent argument as to why we need bigger blocks when the Chinese miners are still creating empty blocks every day (clearly they don't think there is any need to even fill up the blocks as it is)?

I do hope that you realise that if you make the block size 2MB those same mining pools that are creating blocks with 1 tx (just the block reward) will continue to do just that (and in fact you might encourage more of those blocks as they might decide that tx propagation is too much of a hassle with bigger blocks).

So the bigger you make the block size - the smaller the blocks will end up - what are you going to do then?

(btw - can you try and at least "pretend to be intelligent" rather than just insulting?)

1. those few miners making 1tx blocks are all about greed. its not about helping bitcoin its just about the payday. i wish we could do something about them as it would relieve some pressure on the network if every pool was filling blocks would being picky about how many transactions etc.. but we cant
(well we could. by blacklisting their IP's or by making it a rule to have atleast XX tx per block.. lets say 500+ so that ultimately their 1tx blocks orphan out, but thats a different scenario)

2. the 2mb wont stop the greedy miners that happily just want to process 1tx of their block wins.. but it would halp the other pools that want to take in more transactions

3. goodluck proving that.. afterall before 2013, blocks were no bigger then 500kb.. then suddenly due to the bug fix miners could utilize the full 1mb buffer.. so did blocks decrease or increase.. i mean are we currently having no blocks at all that are over 450kb ??
so ill reword it,  knowing that 1mb buffer was actually usable in 2013+ did that suddenly cause the entire blockchain to have blocks of only 250bytes-500kb?
with a visible trend of blocks getting smaller and smaller as time moved on?

[CIYAM]

2. the 2mb wont stop the greedy miners that happily just want to process 1tx of their block wins.. but it would halp the other pools that want to take in more transactions

Let's just go with this point - the majority of mining is in China (where also the majority of 1 tx blocks come from) and it is well known that they do SPV mining in China.

So they aren't very keen in China to process more txs per block (and certainly not in a safe manner as SPV mining is unsafe and led to the last fork issue).

Greed is unfortunately the very basis of Bitcoin mining so that is not going to change (and it does cost a lot to run a mining operation so I'm not sure just how altruistic you could expect anyone doing this to be).

My point is that increasing the block size is not actually likely going to result in much bigger blocks (as the pools that are the majority will still keep their blocks small in order to propagate faster).

If the size was increased a lot more then this pool behaviour would likely become pathological (i.e. most blocks might end up being just 1 tx).

On the other hand technical improvements such as SegWit do offer a way forward that should work for everyone (but you just keep on saying "we need to quick fix now").

[hv_]

2. the 2mb wont stop the greedy miners that happily just want to process 1tx of their block wins.. but it would halp the other pools that want to take in more transactions

Let's just go with this point - the majority of mining is in China (where also the majority of 1 tx blocks come from) and it is well known that they do SPV mining in China.

So they aren't very keen in China to process more txs per block (and certainly not in a safe manner as SPV mining is unsafe and led to the last fork issue).

Greed is unfortunately the very basis of Bitcoin mining so that is not going to change (and it does cost a lot to run a mining operation so I'm not sure just how altruistic you could expect anyone doing this to be).

My point is that increasing the block size is not actually likely going to result in much bigger blocks (as the pools that are the majority will still keep their blocks small in order to propagate faster).

If the size was increased a lot more then this pool behaviour would likely become pathological (i.e. most blocks might end up being just 1 tx).

On the other hand technical improvements such as SegWit do offer a way forward that should work for everyone.

Why not separating the issue

1 ) Try do 2MB

2) If does not help work on incentives for filling blocks (not with fake..)