Classic or Core? Which one is better?

[ATguy]

Does he really says minority should rule majority instead

Technical sollution to the problem like BIP109 is not politic, but given it was tweeted when BIP109 did not even exist can explain a lot, still claiming politic is bad yet his both tweets are just political is bit funny - not much thought put in the tweets in first place.


Now lets get back to the topic, Bitcoin Core 0.12 introduced very controversial feature RBF (Replace by Fee), and it was not disabled by default as one would imagine to be the norm for controversial feature. Thats the reason why we need more implementations and people flexible enought when some implementation misbehave - to get rid of development monopoly and finally start competetion between implementations.

[rizzlarolla]

Ah, the 2 month old tweets from Adam Back?  
Anyone who mentions 1.1mb must love Adam Back and his rage quit brigade blah blah  

David R, I don't think 1.1mb would kill bitcoin.

[exstasie]

i believe there are significant incentives for miner not to create blocks that are TOO big

The relay limitations of all miners are not equal. Orphan risk is unequally distributed based on these limitations, which threatens the viability of groups of miners controlling a minority of hash power = miner centralization risk. See Pieter Wuille's simulation: https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoin_devlist/comments/3bsvm9/mining_centralization_pressure_from_nonuniform/

What defines "too big?" Without some hard limit that defines this, there is nothing to prevent miners from forking networks.

[exstasie]

Does he really says minority should rule majority instead

If the majority cannot override the minority, it doesn't follow that the minority is ruling anyone.

The minority is just enforcing the rules that the entire network consented to; they aren't forcing anything on anyone. Changing the rules involves establishing a new consensus.

Now lets get back to the topic, Bitcoin Core 0.12 introduced very controversial feature RBF (Replace by Fee)

RBF wasn't controversial. Who complained about RBF besides a handful of muppets on r/btc and bitco.in?

It's a fully opt-in protocol, meaning that users who care about unconfirmed transactions can continue to not use RBF. RBF transactions are clearly flagged in the nSequence field, so developers don't really have an excuse for ignoring it. Many programs and platforms that trust unconfirmed transactions already regard low sequence numbered transactions as suspect and ignore them until they confirm.

Why, specifically, was it considered controversial?

Was the opt-in RBF pull request controversial?

Not in the slightest. After extensive informal discussion stemming back months, the PR was opened on October 22nd. It was subsequently discussed in at least four Bitcoin development weekly meetings (2015-11-05, 2015-11-12, 2015-11-19, and 2015-11-26).

In the PR discussion, 19 people commented (including people working on at least three different wallet brands) and 14 people explicitly ACKed the change, including at least one person who had been very outspoken in the past against full RBF. No clearly negative feedback was provided in the PR (or elsewhere that we are aware of) while the PR was open.

https://bitcoincore.org/en/faq/optin_rbf/

[ATguy]

Does he really says minority should rule majority instead

If the majority cannot override the minority, it doesn't follow that the minority is ruling anyone.

The minority is just enforcing the rules that the entire network consented to; they aren't forcing anything on anyone. Changing the rules involves establishing a new consensus.

Consensus ie 100% does not exist in real world in most cases, thats why you choose majority as a mechanism for choosing consensus, sometimes over 50% is enought, but you might choose higher % up to a point where there would be no new consensus possible anymore because small minority could block any change, thus rule the majority will to make change (so your wrong - no change is decission as well, and only with majority will there can be no change to the rules).

RBF wasn't controversial. Who complained about RBF besides a handful of muppets on r/btc and bitco.in?

Thats just your viewpoint, I see RBF controversial and many people do not like it to be enabled by default as well, if I remember F2Pool complained for being RBF enabled by default, but Core developers used excuse it would be more complicated to change the documentation for this feature so preffer to leave RBF enabled by default instead.

In the PR discussion, 19 people commented (including people working on at least three different wallet brands) and 14 people explicitly ACKed the change, including at least one person who had been very outspoken in the past against full RBF. No clearly negative feedback was provided in the PR (or elsewhere that we are aware of) while the PR was open.

Your clearly talking about Core development process, where Core contributors vote. Much different from the whole Bitcoin ecosystems where hardly anyone follows Core internal development process.

[adamstgBit]

i believe there are significant incentives for miner not to create blocks that are TOO big

The relay limitations of all miners are not equal. Orphan risk is unequally distributed based on these limitations, which threatens the viability of groups of miners controlling a minority of hash power = miner centralization risk. See Pieter Wuille's simulation: https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoin_devlist/comments/3bsvm9/mining_centralization_pressure_from_nonuniform/

What defines "too big?" Without some hard limit that defines this, there is nothing to prevent miners from forking networks.

if they have a shitty internet connection whats stopping them from creating a smaller block so they can propagate that block faster?

if they have shitty internet it only incentives them further to create smaller blocks.

you've unintentionally drove my point home?

[exstasie]

Does he really says minority should rule majority instead

If the majority cannot override the minority, it doesn't follow that the minority is ruling anyone.

The minority is just enforcing the rules that the entire network consented to; they aren't forcing anything on anyone. Changing the rules involves establishing a new consensus.

Consensus ie 100% does not exist in real world in most cases

In this case, 100% consensus exists. Hence why bitcoin = a single global ledger, rather than many disparate forks that disagree on the rules to enforce.

because small minority could block any change, thus rule the majority will to make change

That's fine. Nobody forces the majority to do anything. They can fork off onto an alternative network (altcoin) if they want.

so your wrong - no change is decission as well

No, you just have a questionable grasp of the English language. "No change = change" is an illogical non-argument and nobody remotely intelligent falls for that bullshit.

RBF wasn't controversial. Who complained about RBF besides a handful of muppets on r/btc and bitco.in?

Thats just your viewpoint, I see RBF controversial and many people do not like it to be enabled by default as well, if I remember F2Pool complained for being enabled by default, but Core developers used excuse it would be more complicated to change the documentation for this feature so preffer to leave it enabled by default instead.

Being enabled by default means nothing and addresses nothing I said. And stop spreading misinformation. See wangchun's ACK here: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7386#discussion_r50386117

RBF is opt-in for users. That is a fact, and the only relevant one to your complaint here. In any case, I think you're confusing the real issue: whether a hard fork is contentious. Local node policies are very, very separate from the consensus rules of the network.

This is not a consensus rule, so you're free to choose a different setting than the default here.

As I've said on the PR being linked to, I'm certainly willing to consider changing the default if there is controversy about it. But can someone at least point out one service or wallet that is not dealing with this correctly and has no plans to do so in the near future?

No, we avoid contentious consensus rule changes (e.g. hardforks); because no one can choose to avoid the consensus behavior of the network around them. Please don't mix up totally local behavior from the blockchain consensus rules.

Adding an option here-- even though there isn't any rational given to any of the opposition to restoring the original Bitcoin 0.1 functionality for people to choose to consequentially produce non-final transactions was already a purely political response to those desires. The continued attacks in spite of making that requested, but otherwise illogical, accommodation suggests that the complaining parties are not interested in a civilized dialog.

[exstasie]

i believe there are significant incentives for miner not to create blocks that are TOO big

The relay limitations of all miners are not equal. Orphan risk is unequally distributed based on these limitations, which threatens the viability of groups of miners controlling a minority of hash power = miner centralization risk. See Pieter Wuille's simulation: https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoin_devlist/comments/3bsvm9/mining_centralization_pressure_from_nonuniform/

What defines "too big?" Without some hard limit that defines this, there is nothing to prevent miners from forking networks.

if they have a shitty internet connection whats stopping them from creating a smaller block so they can propagate that block faster?

if they have shitty internet it only incentives them further to create smaller blocks.

you've unintentionally drove my point home?

I have not. At all. Not even sure what you're referring to with that.

"A shitty internet connection" is not the issue. Rather inter-regional internet infrastructure is, which is out of the control of miners.

You're suggesting that the lack of any block size limit would result in a single cohesive ledger (Bitcoin) vs multiple ledgers. I assert that without a hard limit, miners would disagree on the block size that they are willing to relay. The only possible result of that is a chain fork because of incompatible rules.

[ATguy]

i believe there are significant incentives for miner not to create blocks that are TOO big

The relay limitations of all miners are not equal. Orphan risk is unequally distributed based on these limitations, which threatens the viability of groups of miners controlling a minority of hash power = miner centralization risk. See Pieter Wuille's simulation: https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoin_devlist/comments/3bsvm9/mining_centralization_pressure_from_nonuniform/

What defines "too big?" Without some hard limit that defines this, there is nothing to prevent miners from forking networks.

I see some have little faith in free market here. If miner create too big block, he will find it out after the block become orphaned. So rational miner should be conservative with his block size when there is not hard limit.

So what prevent miners from forking networks? The same as today, risk of their blocks orphaned to other longest chain. No need for some hard limit

That's fine. Nobody forces the majority to do anything. They can fork off onto an alternative network (altcoin) if they want.

Sorry to dissapoint you, but the majority will call longest chain as Bitcoin, and the forkers with smaller chain can call their pet project as they want.

[exstasie]

i believe there are significant incentives for miner not to create blocks that are TOO big

The relay limitations of all miners are not equal. Orphan risk is unequally distributed based on these limitations, which threatens the viability of groups of miners controlling a minority of hash power = miner centralization risk. See Pieter Wuille's simulation: https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoin_devlist/comments/3bsvm9/mining_centralization_pressure_from_nonuniform/

What defines "too big?" Without some hard limit that defines this, there is nothing to prevent miners from forking networks.

I see some have little faith in free market here. If miner create too big block, he will find it out after the block become orphaned.

...and? What if this miner found this block first by timestamp, but some miners on the network refuse to build on it, and nodes refuse to relay it, due to its size? If there is no hard consensus rule, what is to stop miners and nodes setting local policies that reject blocks beyond certain criteria? In that case, how will they remain a network?

So rational miner should be conservative with his block size when there is not hard limit.
So what prevent miners from forking networks? The same as today, risk of their blocks orphaned to other longest chain. No need for some hard limit

No, you fundamentally misunderstand how bitcoin works. Orphaning only accounts for the latency issues around relaying blocks to the network. It doesn't address the idea that nodes and miners may refuse to relay blocks beyond a certain size. If so, and some miners continue building on such blocks, we see chain forks. Likely we would have many, many forked ledgers instead of a single global ledger.

[adamstgBit]

i believe there are significant incentives for miner not to create blocks that are TOO big

The relay limitations of all miners are not equal. Orphan risk is unequally distributed based on these limitations, which threatens the viability of groups of miners controlling a minority of hash power = miner centralization risk. See Pieter Wuille's simulation: https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoin_devlist/comments/3bsvm9/mining_centralization_pressure_from_nonuniform/

What defines "too big?" Without some hard limit that defines this, there is nothing to prevent miners from forking networks.

if they have a shitty internet connection whats stopping them from creating a smaller block so they can propagate that block faster?

if they have shitty internet it only incentives them further to create smaller blocks.

you've unintentionally drove my point home?

I have not. At all. Not even sure what you're referring to with that.

"A shitty internet connection" is not the issue. Rather inter-regional internet infrastructure is, which is out of the control of miners.

You're suggesting that the lack of any block size limit would result in a single cohesive ledger (Bitcoin) vs multiple ledgers. I assert that without a hard limit, miners would disagree on the block size that they are willing to relay. The only possible result of that is a chain fork because of incompatible rules.

a miner with poor inter-regional internet infrastructure need simply mine a block in which contains less data, as to achieve a higher proportion rate.

better?

[ATguy]

...and? What if this miner found this block first by timestamp, but some miners on the network refuse to build on it, and nodes refuse to relay it, due to its size? If there is no hard consensus rule, what is to stop miners and nodes setting local policies that reject blocks beyond certain criteria? In that case, how will they remain a network?

No, you fundamentally misunderstand how bitcoin works. Orphaning only accounts for the latency issues around relaying blocks to the network. It doesn't address the idea that nodes and miners may refuse to relay blocks beyond a certain size. If so, and some miners continue building on such blocks, we see chain forks. Likely we would have many, many forked ledgers instead of a single global ledger.

That are big misconceptions, no rational miner is going to continue working on smaller chain, because longest chain = Bitcoin. Even today there can be many forked ledgers (miners building on top of smaller chains), but there is little reason to do it thats why you dont see it today and wont see it in future when the hard limit is removed (it is beter to stop wasting electricity if you cant build on top of longest chain, unless you do some experimental pet project and dont care you mine worthless blocks others ignore).

Miners may refuse to relay blocks beyond a certain size, the same way as today they may refuse to build on top of block of certain block version number or any other reason they choose like included transaction with blacklisted coins. They dont do it because of selfish financial interest to be on longest chain + Bitcoin price

[exstasie]

i believe there are significant incentives for miner not to create blocks that are TOO big

The relay limitations of all miners are not equal. Orphan risk is unequally distributed based on these limitations, which threatens the viability of groups of miners controlling a minority of hash power = miner centralization risk. See Pieter Wuille's simulation: https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoin_devlist/comments/3bsvm9/mining_centralization_pressure_from_nonuniform/

What defines "too big?" Without some hard limit that defines this, there is nothing to prevent miners from forking networks.

if they have a shitty internet connection whats stopping them from creating a smaller block so they can propagate that block faster?

if they have shitty internet it only incentives them further to create smaller blocks.

you've unintentionally drove my point home?

I have not. At all. Not even sure what you're referring to with that.

"A shitty internet connection" is not the issue. Rather inter-regional internet infrastructure is, which is out of the control of miners.

You're suggesting that the lack of any block size limit would result in a single cohesive ledger (Bitcoin) vs multiple ledgers. I assert that without a hard limit, miners would disagree on the block size that they are willing to relay. The only possible result of that is a chain fork because of incompatible rules.

a miner with poor inter-regional internet infrastructure need simply mine a block in which contains less data, as to achieve a higher proportion rate.

better?

That doesn't address the assertion that larger blocks contribute to miner centralization. Mining viability over time (due to subsidy halvings) depends on fees becoming a greater share of block rewards. You're then putting some miners between a rock and a hard place: 1) increase orphan rate or 2) decrease block reward. Either way, their viability is threatened, and this disproportionately affects smaller miners/pools, thus contributing to miner centralization.

See the link I posted: The group of smaller miners loses a % of relative income. If they publish larger blocks, their loss percentage goes up slightly further.

Perhaps more important: If a group of miners is willing to relay and build on a 1GB block, it doesn't follow that the rest of the network is willing to. Are we supposed to trust miners never to disagree? Sorry, but no thanks. I prefer that node software makes disagreement (hard forking) impossible.

[exstasie]

That are big misconceptions, no rational miner is going to continue working on smaller chain, because longest chain = Bitcoin.

Again, you don't understand the consensus mechanism. Of course a rational miner will continue working on a smaller chain if the longer chain violates his consensus rules.

Even today there can be many forked ledgers (miners building on top of smaller chains), but there is little reason to do it thats why you dont see it today and wont see it in future when the hard limit is removed

Actually, the limit specifically prevents any disagreement over what constitutes a valid block in regards to size. Without that limit, the entire network must trust all miners to never disagree on the size of blocks they are willing to validate and relay.

Bitcoin is built on the premise that actors will act rationally. Its functionality should not depend on rational actors being correct. Rational actors are wrong all the time; consider all the companies that are constantly going bankrupt. Doesn't mean they were irrational; it means they were wrong.

[adamstgBit]

i believe there are significant incentives for miner not to create blocks that are TOO big

The relay limitations of all miners are not equal. Orphan risk is unequally distributed based on these limitations, which threatens the viability of groups of miners controlling a minority of hash power = miner centralization risk. See Pieter Wuille's simulation: https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoin_devlist/comments/3bsvm9/mining_centralization_pressure_from_nonuniform/

What defines "too big?" Without some hard limit that defines this, there is nothing to prevent miners from forking networks.

if they have a shitty internet connection whats stopping them from creating a smaller block so they can propagate that block faster?

if they have shitty internet it only incentives them further to create smaller blocks.

you've unintentionally drove my point home?

I have not. At all. Not even sure what you're referring to with that.

"A shitty internet connection" is not the issue. Rather inter-regional internet infrastructure is, which is out of the control of miners.

You're suggesting that the lack of any block size limit would result in a single cohesive ledger (Bitcoin) vs multiple ledgers. I assert that without a hard limit, miners would disagree on the block size that they are willing to relay. The only possible result of that is a chain fork because of incompatible rules.

a miner with poor inter-regional internet infrastructure need simply mine a block in which contains less data, as to achieve a higher proportion rate.

better?

That doesn't address the assertion that larger blocks contribute to miner centralization. Mining viability over time (due to subsidy halvings) depends on fees becoming a greater share of block rewards. You're then putting some miners between a rock and a hard place: 1) increase orphan rate or 2) decrease block reward. Either way, their viability is threatened, and this disproportionately affects smaller miners/pools, thus contributing to miner centralization.

See the link I posted: The group of smaller miners loses a % of relative income. If they publish larger blocks, their loss percentage goes up slightly further.

Perhaps more important: If a group of miners is willing to relay and build on a 1GB block, it doesn't follow that the rest of the network is willing to. Are we supposed to trust miners never to disagree? Sorry, but no thanks. I prefer that node software makes disagreement (hard forking) impossible.

you've convinced me. in order to make life fair we need rules which level the playing field.

decentralization is the key to victory, if a there are no miners in africa bitcoin will fail!

[exstasie]

you've convinced me. in order to make life fair we need rules which level the playing field

decentralization is the key to victory, if a there are no miners in africa bitcoin will fail!

Ah, the classic reduction to "omg socialism." Face it: bitcoin is centrally planned. Satoshi was the greatest of all central planners, for he established the money supply of 21 million coins, with controlled inflation. Can't separate engineering from planning.

You can accept that decentralization is a goal to be achieved, or not. If the truth is that you don't care at all how centralized mining becomes (therefore how much control a single entity or cartel may have over all users, include the power to double spend)... then you should come out and say it.

[adamstgBit]

you've convinced me. in order to make life fair we need rules which level the playing field

decentralization is the key to victory, if a there are no miners in africa bitcoin will fail!

Ah, the classic reduction to "omg socialism." Face it: bitcoin is centrally planned. Satoshi was the greatest of all central planners, for he established the money supply of 21 million coins, with controlled inflation. Can't separate engineering from planning.

You can accept that decentralization is a goal to be achieved, or not. If the truth is that you don't care at all how centralized mining becomes (therefore how much control a single entity or cartel may have over all users, include the power to double spend)... then you should come out and say it.

i did!  

[exstasie]

you've convinced me. in order to make life fair we need rules which level the playing field

decentralization is the key to victory, if a there are no miners in africa bitcoin will fail!

Ah, the classic reduction to "omg socialism." Face it: bitcoin is centrally planned. Satoshi was the greatest of all central planners, for he established the money supply of 21 million coins, with controlled inflation. Can't separate engineering from planning.

You can accept that decentralization is a goal to be achieved, or not. If the truth is that you don't care at all how centralized mining becomes (therefore how much control a single entity or cartel may have over all users, include the power to double spend)... then you should come out and say it.

i did!  

Okay, so you want all control over the network to be centralized among a few corporations. No thanks. We fundamentally disagree about what bitcoin is, and I will never be swayed to support such horrible, useless ideas.

[adamstgBit]

I realize i am in the minority and my opinion is not appreciated, and will never be accepted by this crowd... i'm going to leave you guys to your own devices.
bitcoin IS what YOU want it to be. who am i to disagree?
truly sorry for the endless debating, i had to at least try.
its been fun, altho i disagree with your position I respect all of you, even the poeple that seemed like assholes at the time, i was attacking their belief system, their arger is to be expected...
goodbye.

[ATguy]

Actually, the limit specifically prevents any disagreement over what constitutes a valid block in regards to size. Without that limit, the entire network must trust all miners to never disagree on the size of blocks they are willing to validate and relay.

You dont need trust all minners use the same maximum block size they are willing to validate and relay, because there will be always only one longest chain called Bitcoin, thats the beauty of PoW and selfish interest of miners to build only on top of longest chain, otherwise their just building worthless chain and miners will quickly learn the hard way to dont build worthless chains for whatever reason, like limiting only to 1 MB.

You should not be afraid some miners might temporary build on top of smaller chains because of their software having disagreement over what constitutes a valid block in regards to size, because they will learn the hard way by producing worthless blocks, thus they are encouraged to build on top of longest chain only next time (after they realize their mistake).

I realize i am in the minority and my opinion is not appreciated, and will never be accepted by this crowd...

I dont think your minority, people tend to post when they disagree, at least I do.