[POLL] Possible scaling compromise: BIP 141 + BIP 102 (Segwit + 2MB)

[Carlton Banks]

You're wriggling Lauda, visibly


Saying "X MB is acceptable in Y time frame" == saying on-chain scaling works


Go on, try again. See if Franky's strategies work for you, repeat your logical fallacy again and again and again

Following your own logic, by supporting Segwit (2/4MB maximum) you are stating the same, i.e. saying on-chain scaling works. Sigh.

More Franky style lying by omission


You know full well that's not my position, I don't think Segwit's 4MB is sensible either. And you know that, hence you are dishonest

Proving them wrong? Why yes, when they are wrong, that's what one does

You can do that without attacking character/behavior or whatever.

And now the actual ad-hom. I am saying things about you that are relevant to the issue, and which are also true

My assessment proves that you have built up trust in the long term, then used up all of that trust in a couple of days to sell a contradiction.

Problem?

Untrue. I am not selling anything. Bitcoin Core roadmap has a dynamic block size/flexcaps down the road AFAIK.

We are all selling, Lauda, every minute of every day. Only the dishonest deny it, even if they are primarily lying to themselves

[Lauda]

More Franky style lying by omission

Should I rename myself to Franky2?

You know full well that's not my position, I don't think Segwit's 4MB is sensible either. And you know that, hence you are dishonest

So your position is what exactly, 2 MB (Segwit) and layer 2 only?

[Carlton Banks]

So your position is what exactly, 2 MB (Segwit) and layer 2 only?

I'd accept 4MB Segwit (which is the actual proposal), or less increase than that. And of course, the only purpose of that is in reality to enable 2nd layers, yes.


Because only 2nd layers provide any meaningful scaling paradigm

[Lauda]

So your position is what exactly, 2 MB (Segwit) and layer 2 only?

I'd accept 4MB Segwit (which is the actual proposal), or less increase than that. And of course, the only purpose of that is in reality to enable 2nd layers, yes.


Because only 2nd layers provide any meaningful scaling paradigm

So, assuming technology allows us a certain size on-chain post-Segwit, you still wouldn't accept any kind of increase (regardless of BIP, author, implementation)?

[hv_]

Still wondering how much time it takes to understand that economically it does not make any sense promoting (also to miners)

infinite scaling in 2nd layers  (poor investment needed + bit of code hack, try to earn lot of fees / steel from miners)


AND


limiting miners business to 1MB ( high investment by miners DONE)



All we see is just reactions on this (miners awake and do their analysis)  -> a swing back is just natural to that.



Now you need to offer really more to miners or you've lost this battle.

[Carlton Banks]

So, assuming technology allows us a certain size on-chain post-Segwit, you still wouldn't accept any kind of increase (regardless of BIP, author, implementation)?

You're attempting a false premise right off the bat


There is no guarantee that internet infrastructure will be sufficiently capable to deal with on-chain scaling to begin with.

Instead of designing changes around a medium or best case scenario that hasn't happened yet, we should plan for the worst case scenario instead


You're making a super huge assumption that global internet connectivity does not deteriorate over the next 5 years of your "scaling" plan


What happens if the global internet infrastructure deteriorates in bandwidth or connectivity over that timeframe?

[dinofelis]

What happens if the global internet infrastructure deteriorates in bandwidth or connectivity over that timeframe?

What happens if the global electricity infrastructure deteriorates so much that mining by PoW will not be possible any more ?

I would say that if global internet infrastructure deteriorates so much, that we probably have MUCH MUCH bigger problems to handle than caring about a crypto currency on the internet.  Maybe, finding a gun and defend ourselves, and trying to find food or something.  Mad Max style things.

Crypto currencies are a side product of high network connectivity, cheap computing and sufficient electricity.

The problem with block chain based crypto currencies is that they start from some most probably erroneous principles.  Full trustlessness is very, very hard to implement, and the price to pay is way, way too high for a real-world situation where partial trust is often a good investment.   Block chain based crypto currencies, writing all transactions on a global ledger, are extremely wasteful on computing, storing, and network resources ; but as these resources grow over time, and as adoption of these crypto currencies is NOT THAT IMPORTANT, there is a natural throttling of the adoption by the technological cost.  What is strange, is to limit this resource artificially with block limits, instead of having the resource price be a natural limit.

Block chain based crypto currencies will never equal fiat style payment systems, because the investment in trust in these fiat payment systems allows for HUGE advantages in terms of capacity.  The price that block chain based crypto currencies pay, is that they try to adhere to full trustlessness, which is too high a price to pay to compete with trusted systems. 

This is like driving to your work in a fully blinded tank, with all reserve food to be able to sustain all kinds of attacks: for sure, your system is more "secure", but the resources wasted on that are so big, that you are not competitive as compared to the guy taking his bike.  Your costs in terms of maintenance, consumption, capital cost etc for your tank are so big, that you waste all the money you win in going to work in the first place.   The guy on the bike takes the risk of being shot down, true, but at least, he's way, way more competitive in earning money than you are. 

Block chain based crypto currencies are over-protected by trustlessness, and hence, are not competitive with fiat systems.

Of course, you can transform block chain based crypto into less trustless "banking systems" on top of them.  That is more or less what the LN tries to do.  You will get a network of LN banks (big hubs where you have "an account", that is to say, a small-user payment channel).

Yes, you can build faster and lighter structures on top of bitcoin.  By giving up trustlessness.  And building a fiat system.

My idea is that the only use of crypto currencies are those niches where fiat doesn't work.  Those niches are not that important, and advances in technology will push the limits of what crypto currencies can handle to a level where most of those niches are addressed.  In other words, the relative scarcity of adoption that crypto currencies allow will be taken by the most useful niches that need it.

And all the rest will be done by fiat.  I don't see the use of building another fiat system on top of bitcoin: we already have that.  Let crypto currencies exist for those niches where you can't do it with fiat.

And then, one day we will invent better systems than block chains.  That day may not be far away. 

[Carlton Banks]

Not realistic


Deterioration or outright paradigm change of the global internet is very plausible. Get a grip










@Lauda, did you stop talking when I proved you thoroughly wrong, only to leave an opening for Mr. Walls-of-text to disrupt the thread?

[AngryDwarf]

Deterioration in internet capacity. Possible. Netflix is in trouble, dump your shares. Better make your way down to the bank branch to find out it has been closed due to online banking use.

[Carlton Banks]

Deterioration in internet capacity. Possible. Netflix is in trouble, dump your shares. Better make your way down to the bank branch to find out it has been closed due to online banking use.

Yes, and the "Mad Max" hyperbole is nonsense, something closer to Brave New World or Terry Gilliam's Brazil IMO (Terry Gilliam's Brazil is pretty close to reality even now)

[dinofelis]

Yes, and the "Mad Max" hyperbole is nonsense, something closer to Brave New World or Terry Gilliam's Brazil IMO (Terry Gilliam's Brazil is pretty close to reality even now)

Ah, yes, sure.   Then we agree.  But then you can forget about "decentralized" in any case.  And then, in any case, your worries will be of a different type than caring for a crypto currency. 

[Lauda]

So, assuming technology allows us a certain size on-chain post-Segwit, you still wouldn't accept any kind of increase (regardless of BIP, author, implementation)?

You're attempting a false premise right off the bat
[/quite]
No, I am merely asking a question.

Instead of designing changes around a medium or best case scenario that hasn't happened yet, we should plan for the worst case scenario instead

That's not what my question to you is about. I'm asking whether you'd accept a one time increase or some sort of dynamic size with the top limit being what we known is safe at some point in time? I'm not asking about any long term plans.

What happens if the global internet infrastructure deteriorates in bandwidth or connectivity over that timeframe?

What happens if it does so heavily that even Segwit is too much? Hm.

@Lauda, did you stop talking when I proved you thoroughly wrong, only to leave an opening for Mr. Walls-of-text to disrupt the thread?

No.

[Qatuca]

So, assuming technology allows us a certain size on-chain post-Segwit, you still wouldn't accept any kind of increase (regardless of BIP, author, implementation)?

You're attempting a false premise right off the bat


There is no guarantee that internet infrastructure will be sufficiently capable to deal with on-chain scaling to begin with.

Instead of designing changes around a medium or best case scenario that hasn't happened yet, we should plan for the worst case scenario instead


You're making a super huge assumption that global internet connectivity does not deteriorate over the next 5 years of your "scaling" plan


What happens if the global internet infrastructure deteriorates in bandwidth or connectivity over that timeframe?

If the hardware or software is not ready, the miners will not use the bigger block size. So the size increase will slow even though the limit is high.

[Carlton Banks]

So, assuming technology allows us a certain size on-chain post-Segwit, you still wouldn't accept any kind of increase (regardless of BIP, author, implementation)?

You're attempting a false premise right off the bat

No, I am merely asking a question.

A question that has no useful purpose Lauda, hence it being derided as falsely premised

Instead of designing changes around a medium or best case scenario that hasn't happened yet, we should plan for the worst case scenario instead

That's not what my question to you is about. I'm asking whether you'd accept a one time increase or some sort of dynamic size with the top limit being what we known is safe at some point in time? I'm not asking about any long term plans.

Why are we talking about fantasy scenarios, exactly? You may as well ask what my position would be if all 7 billion humans receive 1 Gbit/s connections and quantum computers free of charge next week

What happens if the global internet infrastructure deteriorates in bandwidth or connectivity over that timeframe?

What happens if it does so heavily that even Segwit is too much? Hm.

Good point. Now you're starting to get it; if internet resources became seriously inhibited, 4MB could be crippling to Bitcoin. It's not the such a great compromise when you consider that possibility

[dinofelis]

Good point. Now you're starting to get it; if internet resources became seriously inhibited, 4MB could be crippling to Bitcoin. It's not the such a great compromise when you consider that possibility

My grandma told me to learn to calculate with paper and pensil, because if all pocket calculators would one day fail I could still do my sums with paper and pencil.

[Lauda]

Why are we talking about fantasy scenarios, exactly? You may as well ask what my position would be if all 7 billion humans receive 1 Gbit/s connections and quantum computers free of charge next week

Assuming the Bitcoin network would be able to handle 1.5 MB base + 6 MB weight is a fantasy scenario now? I think you're in the wrong thread.

Good point. Now you're starting to get it; if internet resources became seriously inhibited, 4MB could be crippling to Bitcoin. It's not the such a great compromise when you consider that possibility

Why stop there? 1 MB might be way too much as well. I don't like this argument one bit.

[dinofelis]

Why stop there? 1 MB might be way too much as well. I don't like this argument one bit.

I'm going to invest in a factory that makes 56kbit line modems.

[Carlton Banks]

Good point. Now you're starting to get it; if internet resources became seriously inhibited, 4MB could be crippling to Bitcoin. It's not the such a great compromise when you consider that possibility

Why stop there? 1 MB might be way too much as well. I don't like this argument one bit.

So that's what you would you do if such a situation occurred? Complain directly to reality itself?

I know you don't like the argument, that's why you're trying to wish it away. But political developments of all sorts could cause such drastic things to take place, and who knows how long for, and that's not at all implausible. The worst aspect is exactly how uncertain we can be about the severity or duration of such a possibility. But 12MB blocks though, right?

What is the actual basis of your argument for any of this, all you've done is this thread is jump on the linear x=y big blocks bandwagon without providing any reasoning as to what the purpose of the big blocks will be. Don't say scaling, lol

[Lauda]

Suggestion to OP: Close this thread, start a self-moderated one with a more exact approach to the proposal. This is the only way to filter out the noise if you only want to discuss the proposal and its implications.

I'm going to invest in a factory that makes 56kbit line modems.

I'm prepping Enigma 2.0.

[Carlton Banks]

Suggestion to OP: Close this thread, start a self-moderated one with a more exact approach to the proposal. This is the only way to filter out the noise if you only want to discuss the proposal and its implications.

I'm going to invest in a factory that makes 56kbit line modems.

I'm prepping Enigma 2.0.

You don't want people discussing the proposal unless it's to sing it's fallacious glories? I am discussing the proposal and it's implications, it appears you just prefer the most optimistic scenario possible, which of course is engineering suicide.

And you have zero argument, only mockery? I see