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

[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.

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.

Zero trust of course meant zero trust in other people, not absolute zero trust..  Do I really need to spell everything out?

[1715121583]

1715121583

[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.

Zero trust of course meant zero trust in other people, not absolute zero trust..  Do I really need to spell everything out?

Like the people who provide you with E-L-E-C-T-R-I-C-I-T-Y, or who run the I-N-T-E-R-N-E-T, among others?

[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.

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.

Zero trust of course meant zero trust in other people, not absolute zero trust..  Do I really need to spell everything out?

Like the people who provide you with E-L-E-C-T-R-I-C-I-T-Y, or who run the I-N-T-E-R-N-E-T, among others?

Ugh... 

[markm]

Like the people who provide you with E-L-E-C-T-R-I-C-I-T-Y, or who run the I-N-T-E-R-N-E-T, among others?

Nah, generators can be bought or built, even ones that use wind or water instead of trusting the oill barons; and we can cobble together an IP network out of parallel port cables and serial port cables from igloo to igloo if we have to.

Or we can just buy our electricity and bandwidth from a different provider; plus we can audit/verify the number of kilowatt-hours we are getting, the quality of the alternating current's adherence to the number of cycles per second we ordered, and check that the blockchain our internet provider is giving us verifies and that the blocks it claims nodes out there somewhere are sending us verify. So we don't need to trust either of those providers, we can verify what they provide.

-MarkM-

[caveden]

I can't afford to read 100+ posts on this subject again, so I'll just address OP. Pardon me if I'm repeating something that has already been said.

Right now you are a sovereign in Bitcoin. You should never give that up, under any circumstance.

What do I mean with sovereign? Well there's nothing anyone could possibly do that can make you accept rules you didn't agree with. Nothing. You yourself have to decide to consent to a rule change. But if running a full node becomes impossible for you then all that which you were told about Bitcoin, that rules virtually can't change, that it has a strict limit of 21million, ect, all these rules will then be left to be decided by a small number of super nodes and the people who control them. The second this becomes reality Bitcoin will be no different than simply a slightly more transparent Paypal. And if you don't want that you better make damn sure you can run a full node.

Hazek,

It seems you want Bitcoin to be an absolute trust-free system to anyone, even people running lame machines which can't handle the number of transactions per second a serious payment network would generate.

But... how do you even know, for sure, that the code you're running really does implement the contract you claimed to have "signed"? Is it really trust-free? Or do you trust on the fact that, being open source, somebody with the skills to validate such code will do it, and the day some contract violation is inserted in the code, it would be quickly spotted by code-review? You see how that's not "trust-free" anymore? Very few people, even among computer specialists, are really capable of digesting Bitcoin source code. It's just a tiny "elite" if you will. And that's enough for you, for me, and for everybody else, apparently.

A 4000tps blockchain would be pretty much the same thing, with the difference that, considering how optimized Bitcoin is, it would be much easier to run a full validating node doing 4Ktps than it is to dig into Bitcoin source code and understand it. A much higher percentage of people will be capable of running full nodes than understanding the source. If you can trust the openness of the source code to provide enough reliability for you to use it, why can't you trust the openness of the blockchain to provide the same reliability? Actually, with some effort and expanses, you'd likely be able to finance a 4Ktps full node only for the purpose of validating the chain yourself. Or, at least, get together with like-minded people and finance a full node for that purpose.

Take wikipedia for instance. It's gigantic, fully supported by its supporters donations, and some researchers claim it is more reliable than old-fashion encyclopedias. Nobody can validate its entire content. For every complex article on a particular topic, only a small minority of people in the world have the knowledge to keep it correct, and from these people, only an even smaller minority will actually do it. Yet, it's openness provide this great reliability: http://news.cnet.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html

The blockchain is open, and as such, it can be validated by anyone with the means to. That's more than enough to trust it not to change to something "evil" without major repercussion.

[hazek]

I can't afford to read 100+ posts on this subject again, so I'll just address OP. Pardon me if I'm repeating something that has already been said.

Right now you are a sovereign in Bitcoin. You should never give that up, under any circumstance.

What do I mean with sovereign? Well there's nothing anyone could possibly do that can make you accept rules you didn't agree with. Nothing. You yourself have to decide to consent to a rule change. But if running a full node becomes impossible for you then all that which you were told about Bitcoin, that rules virtually can't change, that it has a strict limit of 21million, ect, all these rules will then be left to be decided by a small number of super nodes and the people who control them. The second this becomes reality Bitcoin will be no different than simply a slightly more transparent Paypal. And if you don't want that you better make damn sure you can run a full node.

Hazek,

It seems you want Bitcoin to be an absolute trust-free system to anyone

Nope. Just me.

But... how do you even know, for sure, that the code you're running really does implement the contract you claimed to have "signed"?

Peer review + github making it extremely easy to spot.

If you can trust the openness of the source code to provide enough reliability for you to use it, why can't you trust the openness of the blockchain to provide the same reliability?

Because I'm not a peer anymore and I have no say in what the rules are anymore. Right now if the network wants to keep me as a blockchain validating, transaction propagating, block validating peer, they need my consent to download a new client. If I can't be such a peer anymore the network will give a rats ass about what I want because they'll control all the peers.

The blockchain is open, and as such, it can be validated by anyone with the means to.

Well there's the rub then isn't. What if just a very small group of people has these means? retep seems to make a pretty good case for exactly that happening if the block size limit is increased.

[markm]

Also, even though I would be surprised if I woke up tommorow to find that bitcoins had gone up to $1000 per coin, I would not be surprised if a whole lot of people's idea of how high a full-node bar could "reasonably" go suddenly jumped upward, maybe quite a bit.

So I think if the people who claim to "need" a larger block size limit to accomodate the lucrative large numbers of users they plan to bring into the system (but cannot bring in today due to the block size limit being in their way) put their "need" quantitatively into bitcoin by buying more bitcoins that could help a whole lot.

How much per bitcoin worth of people are you planning to bring in? Isn't it in your interest to hold lots of coins already yourself before bringing them in? Show how determined you are to bring them in by putting your money in the blockchain and quite possibly that will grease the wheels of upward blocksize movement quite a bit...

...And I have to admit, recent exchange rate trends do seem to indicate serious interest, and are every day making larger and larger upgrades of hardware and bandwidth look "reasonable"...

On the other hand, we hit $32 before on less transactions / smaller blocks than it is taking now to get there, so current levels don't really seem to compellingly call for more block size than we had last time we hit $32.

-MarkM-

[caveden]

Well there's the rub then isn't. What if just a very small group of people has these means? retep seems to make a pretty good case for exactly that happening if the block size limit is increased.

Even in retep "successful dumping" scenario, it would still be easier to have a full node than to understand the entire complexity of bitcoin source code.

But... wait, even you believe in "dumping techniques to rule out competitors"? Seriously?

Because I'm not a peer anymore and I have no say in what the rules are anymore.

Are you a peer in Bitcoin development? Do you review and understand each line of the source code?

If I can't be such a peer anymore the network will give a rats ass about what I want because they'll control all the peers.

No, they can't give a "rats ass", that's what I'm trying to say. Seriously, just look the amount of noise any little thing can provoke around here. The same way that would be extremely difficult to get away with silently tampering the source code, it would be extremely difficult to get away with silently tampering with the blockchain. Actually the latter would likely be more difficult (without having >50% of course). Every attempt to change anything would have to be open and public, and once again you'd have your freedom to choose without being lied to.

[Rampion]

Thanks Hazek. Brilliant post. We, the users, want to be able to run full nodes. That's bitcoin, and that's why we are in.

[markm]

Thanks Hazek. Brilliant post. We, the users, want to be able to run full nodes. That's bitcoin, and that's why we are in.

Good! Now hold bitcoins, enough bitcoins that if exchange rates continue to grow as fast as people want the max block size to grow you'll not find the cost of the stuff you'll need to be a full node "unreasonably" expensive.

-MarkM-

[hazek]

No, they can't give a "rats ass", that's what I'm trying to say. Seriously, just look the amount of noise any little thing can provoke around here. The same way that would be extremely difficult to get away with silently tampering the source code, it would be extremely difficult to get away with silently tampering with the blockchain. Actually the latter would likely be more difficult (without having >50% of course). Every attempt to change anything would have to be open and public, and once again you'd have your freedom to choose without being lied to.

No. You will never convince me this is true. What the monetary authorities in the world today do is all pretty much open and for everyone to see and yet people don't care. Bitcoin is different, there are no monetary authorities and I don't want there to be any, ever. Otherwise I just don't have a use for Bitcoin.

If this isn't the case, or wont be the case that there is no central authority then I'm done and will sell my bitcoins immediately and move on to better things. So please do let me know if I'm mistaken in thinking that there is no central authority right now.

[Jutarul]

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.

+1

Also, running a MOBILE full node is bullshit. If someone wants to run a full node, individuals should set up a home base and VPN into that if they need to validate a transaction. (It also helps with keeping the blockchain in sync and avoid delay times during the validation process).

So by virtue of "drawing" a line, we should only consider workstation solutions, not laptops, phones and stuff.

There is also the possibility to host your own validation node in the cloud. However, cloud services are not decentralized enough, so I'd be wary of that option.

[caveden]

No. You will never convince me this is true. What the monetary authorities in the world today do is all pretty much open and for everyone to see and yet people don't care.

And you really think the masses care about Bitcoin non-inflationary nature? You're the minority there, my friend!

A thing that people do care, though, is relative appreciation of currencies. They tend to migrate their money toward safer currencies. Just check how the Swiss Franc was going up in value before being tied to the euro. But people don't really understand monetary policy, and most that eventually accept using Bitcoin, will either be due to its appreciation, or because it's cheaper, or due to its privacy, or due to its censorship-resistance etc. The majority of people don't even know what "monetary policy" is.

Bitcoin is different, there are no monetary authorities and I don't want there to be any, ever.

Please, are you claiming that letting bitcoin be useful to millions by dropping this hard limit of 7tps would create a "central authority"? First you believe in 'dumping techniques', now this? Do you realize what "central authority" actually means? Do you understand that Google, for instance, is not a central-authority of internet search and videos? And that it would be practically impossible for a single pool operator to aggregate the same "market share" in bitcoin mining than Google has in internet search and video?

Where are you taking these fears from? I thought you were more versed in economics. You're sounding like people who have never heard of spontaneous order.

[wtfvanity]

Thanks Hazek. Brilliant post. We, the users, want to be able to run full nodes. That's bitcoin, and that's why we are in.

Good! Now hold bitcoins, enough bitcoins that if exchange rates continue to grow as fast as people want the max block size to grow you'll not find the cost of the stuff you'll need to be a full node "unreasonably" expensive.

-MarkM-

+1

The ideas about this are so spread out. Search my posts in the other thread for the full details, but a 10 meg block, miners could still do that today. That's a 10x increase over current limits and sets the TPS in line with Paypal. The average user can easily download a 10 meg block every 10 minutes and verify the chain. That's not a 10 meg block 24/7, that's just at peak when we eventually get there. Unless something crazy happens, that will be several years.

56k modem couldn't keep up with the block chain. It would take them 20-30 minutes to download a full block. Someone on 256k DSL shouldn't have a problem running a full node if every block were jam packed full. They couldn't mine, but they could with 100% certainty verify the block chain.

And there would still be NOTHING stopping a group of peers or even just by themselves from renting a VPS for $15 a month, and running a full node and using a light client with bloom filters. In places like Africa, that might be the cheaper way to do it and is still a valid option at 10 meg block sizes.

[d'aniel]

hazek, I had your notion of "sovereignty" from this thread in mind when I wrote this post: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=144895.msg1545885#msg1545885

It appears to be achievable with an SPV client to a similar degree that most people currently achieve it with a fully validating client.  I don't see any reason why even smart phone clients can't be "sovereign", at least practically speaking.

[hazek]

hazek, I had your notion of "sovereignty" from this thread in mind when I wrote this post: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=144895.msg1545885#msg1545885

It appears to be achievable with an SPV client to a similar degree that most people currently achieve it with a fully validating client.  I don't see any reason why even smart phone clients can't be "sovereign", at least practically speaking.

Great. Like I said I don't care how it's done, just that it is.

[johnyj]

Some of my view:

Fast online payment is just an additional feature for bitcoin, not core value, and it will never be. People comes to bitcoin because of it's value (generated from its unique properties), not because it is 2% cheaper than CC (with CC consumer have the advantage of performing a charge back if the seller is a scammer), people will spend fiat instead of bitcoin since they know the value of fiat is going down constantly and btc price will rise in long term, if bitcoin's value holds, they even can get a fiat loan backed by bitcoin and spend

If we really reached the status that many transaction can not be done quickly, then satoshi's idea about "phase in the change" is a good implementation approach, and it may require several intermediate versions, the process should take at least one year. But the core question now is wether we really need such a change

Actually many people here are just hoarding coins, there are not really a lot of transactions happening everyday, especially miners who connected to a pool. If we remove satoshi-dice, I think at least in the latest 2 years it will still work fine. Satoshi-dice is just an execellent example of no matter how big the block size is, there will be applications flood that space with meaningless transactions

A fork means the amount of coin will get doubled immediately, a 100% inflation in the whole system, and this directly destroyed the promise of there will never be more than 21 million coin. If this happens once, it will happen again, then bitcoin is not in any way better than fiat today, just the inflation control has been shifted from FED to a couple of programmers, people won't have incentive to hold their coins, they will sell before these programmers come up with a new idea to improve bitcoin and inflate the system again with new coins

Bitcoin is not only some software code, it is a spirit, if it split itself into two personality, then it essentially lost the soul

[Walter Rothbard]

A fork means the amount of coin will get doubled immediately, a 100% inflation in the whole system, and this directly destroyed the promise of there will never be more than 21 million coin.

This is not correct.  The coins on the two chains will not have the same properties and will not be valued the same.

[Rampion]

Some of my view:

Actually many people here are just hoarding coins, there are not really a lot of transactions happening everyday, especially miners who connected to a pool. If we remove satoshi-dice, I think at least in the latest 2 years it will still work fine. Satoshi-dice is just an execellent example of no matter how big the block size is, there will be applications flood that space with meaningless transactions

And now imagine Satoshi-dice translated in 100 languages and used daily by 100 million people. And now imagine imagine another 100 Satoshi-dice type of service. That's going to be a problem, no matter how big the block size is.

[notig]

Some of my view:

Actually many people here are just hoarding coins, there are not really a lot of transactions happening everyday, especially miners who connected to a pool. If we remove satoshi-dice, I think at least in the latest 2 years it will still work fine. Satoshi-dice is just an execellent example of no matter how big the block size is, there will be applications flood that space with meaningless transactions

And now imagine Satoshi-dice translated in 100 languages and used daily by 100 million people. And now imagine imagine another 100 Satoshi-dice type of service. That's going to be a problem, no matter how big the block size is.

We're all keen to see efficient protocols built on top of Bitcoin for things like micropayment channels (which allow lots of fast repetitive satoshi-sized payments without impacting the block chain), or trusted computing (which allows offline transactions to be carried around in long chains until final resolution). Also the payment protocol should eliminate the most absurd abuses of micropayments like SDs messaging system. These things fall into the class of "no brainers" and were discussed for a long time already.

Other more exotic ideas like Ripple-style networks of payment routers using contracts don't seem against the spirit of Bitcoin if they keep the low trust aspects of the system.

At the same time, as evidenced by the disagreement on this thread, there are too many unknown variables for us to figure out what will happen ahead of time. The only way to really find out is to try it and see what happens. If Bitcoin does fail to scale then the end result will be a smaller number of full nodes but lots of people using the system - this is still better than Bitcoin being deliberately crippled so it never gets popular because even if the number of full nodes collapses down to less than 1000, unknown future advances in technology might make it cheap enough for everyone to run a full node again. In the absence of a hard-coded limit the number of full nodes can flex up and down as supply and demand change. But with a hard-coded limit Bitcoin will fail to achieve popularity amongst ordinary people and will eventually be forgotten.