Why the Bitcoin rules can't change (reading time ~5min)

[greyhawk]

I don't think any discussion of Bitcoin development should be based on assumptions that it's important to listen to those with 56.6kbps modems. Bitcoin should not be designed around the lowest common denominator of technology, just to dictate that "everyone can run it."

It should be usable by most people, but there's no reason to get hung up about fringe use cases like 56.6 modems.

56.6 is a fringe case? You people want Bitcoin to replace all world currencies. Do you even know what the world looks like? How over 20% of the world live on less than a dollar per day? How 15% of the world do not even have access to running water? And you want them to employ bitcoin?

Funny enough, I totally understand Hazek. Ultra-Randian as he is, he only cares about bitcoin benefiting his own mores. And that's good and fine, at least he's honest about it. But if you follow that route, know you're only just rebuilding exactly the same system as we already have, only the faces have changed. And then bitcoin becomes not so much about freeing the people from the restraints current economic and political structures forces upon them. It is about becoming the new arbiter of constraints oneself. It's about abolishing "dictatorship" to become the new dictator instead. It's about Iznogoud becoming "Calife A La Place Du Calife". It's about people being butt-hurt they can't succeed in the current environment wanting to become the God-Emperor of Dune.

[notig]

I don't think any discussion of Bitcoin development should be based on assumptions that it's important to listen to those with 56.6kbps modems. Bitcoin should not be designed around the lowest common denominator of technology, just to dictate that "everyone can run it."

It should be usable by most people, but there's no reason to get hung up about fringe use cases like 56.6 modems.

56.6 is a fringe case? You people want Bitcoin to replace all world currencies. Do you even know what the world looks like? How over 20% of the world live on less than a dollar per day? How 15% of the world do not even have access to running water? And you want them to employ bitcoin?

Funny enough, I totally understand Hazek. Ultra-Randian as he is, he only cares about bitcoin benefiting his own mores. And that's good and fine, at least he's honest about it. But if you follow that route, know you're only just rebuilding exactly the same system as we already have, only the faces have changed. And then bitcoin becomes not so much about freeing the people from the restraints current economic and political structures forces upon them. It is about becoming the new arbiter of constraints oneself. It's about abolishing "dictatorship" to become the new dictator instead. It's about Iznogoud becoming "Calife A La Place Du Calife". It's about people being butt-hurt they can't succeed in the current environment wanting to become the God-Emperor of Dune.

He isn't talking about users of bitcoin. he is talking about MINERS. Already mining is somewhat exclusive. Think someone living on a dollar a day with a 56k modem is going to be able to afford an ASIC? What he is saying is that rather than trying to cater to 100% of people who can mine... it's better for the bitcoin network to have the grunt work(mining) done by users with decent internet connections. (which already prevail in the developed world). Otherwise the bitcoin network can't succeed because if it becomes more popular... then the network itself will be a bottleneck.

[greyhawk]

So miners are the new banks. Fits exactly with my rant. 

[notig]

So miners are the new banks. Fits exactly with my rant. 

Think of it this way... with the current artificial restriction on block size there is a certain limit on the supply of transactions.  If more users use bitcoin (we all hope this right? Hopefully? ) Then that is more people competing to make transactions on the same network that is bottlenecked by a restriction. What this means is that it will cost more and MORE and MORE to simply make a transaction. You talk of eliminating people from being able to use bitcoin? That is the surest way to do it.

[misterbigg]

You're priviledged in your space and bandwith capacity. What about those not so lucky? Those on volume capped lines? What about Africa, where most people outside of major cities still connect via 56k dial-up if even?

Clearly, there needs to be some sort of minimum requirements. Given that, there will always be people who cannot participate, since they do not meet the minimum requirements. Crippling Bitcoin by trying to creating accessibility for everyone is a fools errand. My personal opinion is that we should draw the line above dial-up. Sorry, but it's better to attack the problem of dial-up by societal pressure to upgrade their Internet connection rather than accommodating it in the Bitcoin protocol.

Besides, people have lousy Internet connections for economic and political reasons, not technical ones. The rise of Bitcoin as an alternative to the fiat banking monopoly should indirectly help with Internet access.

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

Then those who can't afford to run a full node right now are must understand that they are using Bitcoin without their explicit consent to what rules Bitcoin functions under. That their wealth is in the hands of those who can.

Big whoop. Unless you live self-sufficiently in the mountains, every last morsel of food, all your clothing and shelter and everything else that constitutes your livelihood comes only at the discretion of others. This is the modern economic reality, and by the way it is wonderful.

This myth that Bitcoin gives you total control over your money isn't helpful; you'll always be at the mercy of the herd - this is how civilization works, and this is how Bitcoin works. It is not the rules that give Bitcoin its stability and reliability, but rather the consistency over time in the beliefs and desires of those who participate in this social experiment.

This blocksize change will only be an problem if people manufacture one out of it.

[Peter Todd]

He isn't talking about users of bitcoin. he is talking about MINERS. Already mining is somewhat exclusive. Think someone living on a dollar a day with a 56k modem is going to be able to afford an ASIC? What he is saying is that rather than trying to cater to 100% of people who can mine... it's better for the bitcoin network to have the grunt work(mining) done by users with decent internet connections. (which already prevail in the developed world). Otherwise the bitcoin network can't succeed because if it becomes more popular... then the network itself will be a bottleneck.

Sheesh... When I brought up 56k modems, I stated quite clearly they are too slow to mine on, because the orphan rate would be way too high. However, they are fast enough to keep up with the chain, letting you validate it and make sure some centralized cartel of miners aren't trying to rip you off via inflation.

For an acceptably low orphan rate, say 2%, you need a much faster connection that a 56k modem, because you need to be able to download a whole block within a about 10 seconds.

[solex]

Like I already said, if there where 180 Mil. Bitcoin users, that would allow one Blockchain transaction per User per Year. Directly meaning, that the average User would need to Use some kind of (centralised, intransparent, unanonimous, etc.) Provider and never be able to validate his BTC ownership on the Blockchain.

That can't be a solution.

Also, Disk space is already cheap and will become cheaper. It will still be possible for many users to run full nodes for a long time, ever if the space and bad with requirements increase.

+1 You are absolutely correct.

I have a lot of respect for Hazek, but if I read the OP correctly: that Bitcoin can't change unless 100% of its (full node) users agree, then it will lead to paralysis. In the worst case, because 100% agreement can never be achieved, Bitcoin will split into different coins, or fail completely. There needs to be some way forward even if a *small* percentage of users object. The real world is not perfect, in case some people are forgetting...

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

Hmmmm, so discarding the 1MB limit is actually going to be the cause of the libertarian fringe leaving Bitcoin? And it will allow the Bitcoin economy to grow?

I'm liking this idea more and more by the minute!

Nope, just the ethical central planner libertarians who think their interpretation of what is voluntary and what is coercive is the objectively best one. Rothbardians and Randians always encounter problems because of their moralizing, but Misesians and especially Hayekians can understand what Bitcoin is about. Bitcoin isn't about monetary sovereignty; it's about not having centralized power over money, allowing the free market to work. The idea of "objective" sovereignty is a minarchist holdover stuck in the old statist paradigm. In a stateless system the benefits are myriad, but being able to "control your own money" in the sense of controlling the system itself to any significant degree is not one of them. The endpoint of such reasoning is going off to live in the woods as a hermit. That is not what libertarianism is about.

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

So miners are the new banks. Fits exactly with my rant.  

No. Banks are the goliaths they are solely because they have the politicians in their back pockets. A Bitcoin mining lobby is a hard thing to imagine. This makes new entry prohibitive, not merely expensive. Watch "Bank of Dave."

[elendir]

I'd like to get back to the original post: could you please elaborate on what happens to a regular user after the fork? What if I stick with the previous version of full node client and others switch to the new one? Will I be able to transfer BTC to these users? Or does the fork mean that the current money supply gets divided between those two versions?

[gmaxwell]

Or does the fork mean that the current money supply gets divided between those two versions?

Yup. A non-trivial (more than a few percent on each side) mutually exclusive fork is the worst possible outcome for bitcoin. From one currency is two, and all older coins can be spent twice.  There are enormous incentives to achieve universal consensus one way or another.

[Mike Hearn]

These discussions are getting silly.

hazek, even if running a full node gets too expensive for you (which I don't think is likely), you don't have to pay for a node entirely by yourself. You can team up with other like minded people and split the costs. Using assurance contracts and a computer in a remote datacenter capable of trusted computing, you can even do it with people you don't know and don't trust. By the time this becomes an issue, the software to make all that easy will probably have existed for some time. If not then again, you can team up with other people and fund it. I'm sure many people would feel the same way as you and be willing to contribute.

But even at high transaction rates, the cost of a full node is not likely to exceed the spare funds of an employed person with a decent wage anytime soon. Not unless you believe Bitcoin will become more widely used than Visa in the next couple of years, which would be absurdly optimistic even by the standards of our community

People on 56k modems can of course use SPV clients even at high transaction rates. You know exactly what rules they are enforcing because, assuming you are patient enough to download web pages over your dialup connection, the ruleset being enforced by the miner majority will be documented somewhere! If you disagree with those rules, well, that sucks to be you because then you're no longer on the best chain even if you run a full node and are essentially using a different currency.

In short, even if Bitcoin becomes enormous, I can't see a time when hazek is unable to check what the rules are, even in the unlikely even that he is forced to rely on SPV mode.

[hazek]

Mike, like I said a hundred times already.. I don't care how it's solved and am willing to accept almost any rule change as long as I keep my Bitcoin sovereignty. That's all I care about.

In short, even if Bitcoin becomes enormous, I can't see a time when hazek is unable to check what the rules are, even in the unlikely even that he is forced to rely on SPV mode.

BTW Bitcoin sovereignty doesn't mean I just want to be able to validate what rules are used when transactions are validated and blocks created and added to the blockchain. It means that these rules also can't change for me without me downloaded a new set. Right now it's extremely hard to do a hard fork if you don't have near complete consensus because of the economic ramifications. You need almost all users to agree. But once you take away full clients from merchants and regular users, rule changes can happen at any time because you don't need them to download anything anymore because they aren't actually validating anything anymore. Yes you can probably still spot a rule change, but you can't affect it by being part of the network and refusing to download a new client threatening a hard fork.


But hey, as I said, I don't care how this is achieved. If a light client can give me the same sovereignty, I don't care, as long as it does. As long as I have to give my explicit consent to a rule change, I'm happy.

[jojkaart]

But hey, as I said, I don't care how this is achieved. If a light client can give me the same sovereignty, I don't care, as long as it does. As long as I have to give my explicit consent to a rule change, I'm happy.

This sovereignty you mean is mostly an illusion. The real power you have is that if the rules change in a way you don't like, you can sell your coins and go use another system that works the way you want. this is not substantially different from just sticking with the old version. The specifics do differ though. Whether you're actually validating things yourself only affects whether you have to trust what others say about the system or if you can verify it for yourself.

[markm]

Which boils down to is it or is it not a zero-trust system?

I suppose you'd argue it is a limited entry level zero trust system, a system that is zero trust for the megacorps and any sufficiently wealhy nations or other sufficiently well heeled players, but for normal folks is just another trust the big boys / trust the grownups / trust Big Brother system?

-MarkM-

[JackH]

I would like to see a special box (bitcoin hardware full node) separate from the computer and work just as node storage and distribution blockchain with large HD connected to the network much like Samsung Chromebox but much cheaper with a very small power consumption and I can turned on 24 hours a day.

This!

But for this to really kick off, there should be an incentive, like the miners have an incentive. Any ideas? And we can finally close the book on the last hypothetical problem with BTC and go worldwide with this baby.

[hazek]

Which boils down to is it or is it not a zero-trust system?

I suppose you'd argue it is a limited entry level zero trust system, a system that is zero trust for the megacorps and any sufficiently wealhy nations or other sufficiently well heeled players, but for normal folks is just another trust the big boys / trust the grownups / trust Big Brother system?

-MarkM-

Precisely. Right now when I advertise Bitcoin I advertise it as zero trust. I'm afraid, if the little guy can't validate what rules are validated anymore, I wont be able to do so anymore and you can bet many many users will not like this at all to the point that they'll leave, just like I will.

We already have trust the big guys systems and look how that's working out. And if anyone is going to try and discredit this position as some sort of ideological grandstanding I invite you to look up the genesis block and read what Satoshi wrote in there and learn what exactly his motivation was when he started Bitcoin.

[markm]

I would like to see a special box (bitcoin hardware full node) separate from the computer and work just as node storage and distribution blockchain with large HD connected to the network much like Samsung Chromebox but much cheaper with a very small power consumption and I can turned on 24 hours a day.

This!

But for this to really kick off, there should be an incentive, like the miners have an incentive. Any ideas? And we can finally close the book on the last hypothetical problem with BTC and go worldwide with this baby.

Maybe the incentive is "multiply the fee your local (or trusted, or least-hated, or least-distrusted) blockchain-audit corporation charges you for consultations regarding the verity of the blackchain by the number of such consultations you expect to or want to make, and compare that cost to the cost of running a node so that you can audit it yourself"

-MarkM-

[Piper67]

Which boils down to is it or is it not a zero-trust system?

I suppose you'd argue it is a limited entry level zero trust system, a system that is zero trust for the megacorps and any sufficiently wealhy nations or other sufficiently well heeled players, but for normal folks is just another trust the big boys / trust the grownups / trust Big Brother system?

-MarkM-

Precisely. Right now when I advertise Bitcoin I advertise it as zero trust. I'm afraid, if the little guy can't validate what rules are validated anymore, I wont be able to do so anymore and you can bet many many users will not like this at all to the point that they'll leave, just like I will.

We already have trust the big guys systems and look how that's working out. And if anyone is going to try and discredit this position as some sort of ideological grandstanding I invite you to look up the genesis block and read what Satoshi wrote in there and learn what exactly his motivation was when he started Bitcoin.

This argument quickly reduces to bringing the goat to the market to trade it for potatoes. Zero trust is an illusion. Even now, you trust you'll have access to the means to access the internet (electricity, for example), and you trust that the internet won't blow up, rendering your bitcoins worthless.

It's about managing trust, not about reducing it to zero.