Open Letter to GMaxwell and Sincere Rational Core Devs

[Carlton Banks]

I didn't cite Core's roadmap, I cited the overall concept. You're conflating the implementation with the root concept.

I'm talking about reality, the real proposal on the table, you are speaking about air/nothing.

Abstract concepts are the most real and true knowledge there is. Have you read Plato?

[traincarswreck]

Abstract concepts are the most real and true knowledge there is. Have you read Plato?

Yes I have read plato, and you have given me the impression that you haven't.

Nonetheless the RELEVANT topic is that core has a proposal on the table that doesn't seem to match the Nashian standard.  That you might have a proposal that does (air) is nowhere NEAR as relevant as the ACTUAL (reality) proposal that is currently being signaled/voted on.

[danda]

If it is not a change then I guess is it already in active use by bitcoin nodes worldwide right?   I can go make a segwit transaction now right?

oh wait, no I can't.  and it's not.   because... it is a change to the consensus layer.

addition, change.  whatever.  it's a change.

Carlton, and company.  How did you come to the conclusion segwit isn't a change OR doesn't increase the tps?

Here's how.
 
Segregated witness does not need to increase the tps, you've already heard my attitude to that. In it's own right, segwit simply segregates the signatures into a separate, parallel block structure.

Further, segwit isn't a change. It's an addition.

[jonald_fyookball]

If all you can say is that I haven't read as many books as you, then you lose the debate.

You can't refute my logic, nor can you link me to any page on the entire Internet that supports your kooky theories.

I'm telling you my argument is founded in accepted economic theory, that you do not understand or know the theory does not make it kooky.  I have cited everything I have said along this whole way, your understand of what markets are and their purpose runs counter to accepted economic science, I cannot be expected to teach you.

blah blah blah blah blah

do you even believe humans have free will?

[Carlton Banks]

Do you understand the concept of separating the signatures into a separate block structure? The discussion relevant to your Nashian prespective is about the concept, not instantiations of the concept.

I wouldn't attempt to interest you in anything that involved tps increases, it's outside the useful bounds of this discussion, we both agree that. Segregated witness blocks need not increase tps.

[traincarswreck]

If it is not a change then I guess is it already in active use by bitcoin nodes worldwide right?   I can go make a segwit transaction now right?

oh wait, no I can't.  and it's not.   because... it is a change to the consensus layer.

addition, change.  whatever.  it's a change.

exactly and its a tps increase right?

Block capacity/size increase

Since old nodes will only download the witness-stripped block, they only enforce the 1 MB block size limit rule on that data. New nodes, which understand the full block with witness data, are therefore free to replace this limit with a new one, allowing for larger block sizes. Segregated witness therefore takes advantage of this opportunity to raise the block size limit to nearly 4 MB, and adds a new cost limit to ensure blocks remain balanced in their resource use (this effectively results in an effective limit closer to 1.6 to 2 MB).

That's a citation folks.

[traincarswreck]

blah blah blah blah blah

do you even believe humans have free will?

scientifically speaking they don't: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCofmZlC72g

[danda]

Carlton, I fail to see why segregating witness data is relevant, tps increase or not.

It is a CHANGE.   Op (and I) are advocating against change.  Do you not see that?

Or at least I am advocating against any changes to the consensus level code. (unless released with a new genesis block).   And OP is advocating that any bitcoin change be vetted through the filter of it advances Nashian goals... which is pretty much the same thing.

Do you understand the concept of separating the signatures into a separate block structure? The discussion relevant to your Nashian prespective is about the concept, not instantiations of the concept.

I wouldn't attempt to interest you in anything that involved tps increases, it's outside the useful bounds of this discussion, we both agree that. Segregated witness blocks need not increase tps.

[traincarswreck]

Do you understand the concept of separating the signatures into a separate block structure? The discussion relevant to your Nashian prespective is about the concept, not instantiations of the concept.

I wouldn't attempt to interest you in anything that involved tps increases, it's outside the useful bounds of this discussion, we both agree that. Segregated witness blocks need not increase tps.

Core is proposing a damaging proposal, because they are including an increase in tps in the proposal.  

Is this correct or no?

[traincarswreck]

Carlton, I fail to see why segregating witness data is relevant, tps increase or not.

It is a CHANGE.   Op (and I) are advocating against change.  Do you not see that?

Or at least I am advocating against any changes to the consensus level code. (unless released with a new genesis block).   And OP is advocating that any bitcoin change be vetted through the filter of it advances Nashian goals... which is pretty much the same thing.

If it doesn't affect the tps then it might be a fine change.  We are not resist to any changes or improvements.  We are to be resistant against any changes that affect the future perceived value or quality in the nashian sense.

If technology became such that quantum computing provided a security leak and threatened the whole system such a change would be implied to be good because such a technology would destory bitcoin's value if it was allowed to.

Some change is to be allowed.

[Carlton Banks]

Or at least I am advocating against any changes to the consensus level code.

Segregated witness without tps increases doesn't change the consensus parameters. I don't know how much more plainly to say that. 1MB segwit is no problem.

[jonald_fyookball]

blah blah blah blah blah

do you even believe humans have free will?

scientifically speaking they don't: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCofmZlC72g

he is wrong. (I won't waste my time explaining why)

[traincarswreck]

he is wrong. (I won't waste my time explaining why)

i might agree with you, and probably understand why.  But my argument is framed with all ACCEPTED definitions.  So scientists will accept it. So this is why the markets behave from my perspective not your perspective.  Yes perspective is subjective, but my perspective is shared with science, which is useful for getting scientists to agree.

[danda]

segwit would fix the malleability problem and would fix the quadratic verification issue, amongst other things.  In particular the malleability fix would be useful for second layer TPS solutions, but not entirely necessary.   It also provides a TPS bump, almost as a side effect.

To my mind, these are mostly all good things, and should have been in the original design.

But that does NOT mean that I support adding them now.  rather, the opposite.   to do so would be to force this value change on others immorally, without full consent.

Do you understand the concept of separating the signatures into a separate block structure? The discussion relevant to your Nashian prespective is about the concept, not instantiations of the concept.

I wouldn't attempt to interest you in anything that involved tps increases, it's outside the useful bounds of this discussion, we both agree that. Segregated witness blocks need not increase tps.

Core is proposing a damaging proposal, because they are including an increase in tps in the proposal.  

Is this correct or no?

[traincarswreck]

Segregated witness without tps increases doesn't change the consensus parameters. I don't know how much more plainly to say that. 1MB segwit is no problem.

But then you would agree core needs to alter its proposal for segwit, at least if my argument is founded?

[danda]

of course it does.  if it did not, there would be no debate, no soft fork proposal.  any client could just do it.

Or at least I am advocating against any changes to the consensus level code.

Segregated witness without tps increases doesn't change the consensus parameters. I don't know how much more plainly to say that. 1MB segwit is no problem.

[traincarswreck]

 It also provides a TPS bump, almost as a side effect.

To my mind, these are mostly all good things, and should have been in the original design.

The side effect is not a good idea.  Its a tacit assumption to suggest that it is a good idea.

[traincarswreck]

of course it does.  if it did not, there would be no debate, no soft fork proposal.  any client could just do it.

See we are highlighting the reason the debate is never ending.

[danda]

If technology became such that quantum computing provided a security leak and threatened the whole system such a change would be implied to be good because such a technology would destory bitcoin's value if it was allowed to.

Some change is to be allowed.

In this case, new code could be released with a new genesis block and intelligent people (ie the market) could move their funds to it.  Eventually bitcoin 1.0 would be abandoned.   so what?

I see no reason to compromise on the principle of immutability.

[traincarswreck]

In this case, new code could be released with a new genesis block and intelligent people (ie the market) could move their funds to it.  Eventually bitcoin 1.0 would be abandoned.   so what?

I see no reason to compromise on the principle of immutability.

That's not a stable thing, bitcoin if we are to abandon it in the near future.  

In object-oriented and functional programming, an immutable object (unchangeable object) is an object whose state cannot be modified after it is created. This is in contrast to a mutable object (changeable object), which can be modified after it is created

adjective
1.
not mutable; unchangeable; changeless.

The argument changed when I brought Ideal Money forth.  It's not "immutability" that is to be guarded.  There is no context in such a statement.  It's immutability IN THE NASHIAN SENSE.  That is what is important, because guarding that quality will bring our existing legacy financial system into order, and this will bring about a stable metric for value.

A stable metric for value, is the most important technology we are capable of creating at this time.