Gavin to Satoshi, 2010 -- "SOMEBODY will try to mess up the network (...)"

[pereira4]

I don't believe a second, compatible implementation of Bitcoin will ever be a good idea.  So much of the design depends on all nodes getting exactly identical results in lockstep that a second implementation would be a menace to the network.  The MIT license is compatible with all other licenses and commercial uses, so there is no need to rewrite it from a licensing standpoint.

Good idea or not, SOMEBODY will try to mess up the network (or co-opt it for their own use) sooner or later.  They'll either hack the existing code or write their own version, and will be a menace to the network.

I admire the flexibility of the scripts-in-a-transaction scheme, but my evil little mind immediately starts to think of ways I might abuse it.  I could encode all sorts of interesting information in the TxOut script, and if non-hacked clients validated-and-then-ignored those transactions it would be a useful covert broadcast communication channel.

That's a cool feature until it gets popular and somebody decides it would be fun to flood the payment network with millions of transactions to transfer the latest Lady Gaga video to all their friends...

A second version would be a massive development and maintenance hassle for me.  It's hard enough maintaining backward compatibility while upgrading the network without a second version locking things in.  If the second version screwed up, the user experience would reflect badly on both, although it would at least reinforce to users the importance of staying with the official version.  If someone was getting ready to fork a second version, I would have to air a lot of disclaimers about the risks of using a minority version.  This is a design where the majority version wins if there's any disagreement, and that can be pretty ugly for the minority version and I'd rather not go into it, and I don't have to as long as there's only one version.

I know, most developers don't like their software forked, but I have real technical reasons in this case.

I admire the flexibility of the scripts-in-a-transaction scheme, but my evil little mind immediately starts to think of ways I might abuse it.  I could encode all sorts of interesting information in the TxOut script, and if non-hacked clients validated-and-then-ignored those transactions it would be a useful covert broadcast communication channel.

That's a cool feature until it gets popular and somebody decides it would be fun to flood the payment network with millions of transactions to transfer the latest Lady Gaga video to all their friends...

That's one of the reasons for transaction fees.  There are other things we can do if necessary.

How long have you been working on this design Satoshi?  It seems very well thought out, not the kind of thing you just sit down and code up without doing a lot of brainstorming and discussion on it first.  Everyone has the obvious questions looking for holes in it but it is holding up well

Since 2007.  At some point I became convinced there was a way to do this without any trust required at all and couldn't resist to keep thinking about it.  Much more of the work was designing than coding.

Fortunately, so far all the issues raised have been things I previously considered and planned for.

Well well well, what do we have there? Look at this amazing piece of history.

Gavin Andressen, back when he was reasonable, pointing out how people would try to flood the network with trash.

Then satoshi, pointing out how basically BU would be a disaster.

How times change. Now a post-CIA Gavin is pushing this BU trash and supporting Jihan Wu and the rest of idiots flooding the network with garbage to try to force the BU nonsense as a solution.

Gavin and BUcoiners exposed again by Gavin and satoshi himself.

Here's further exposing of Gavin in pre-CIA times, talking about the evils that he is now promoting, and pointing out how merchants and nodes control bitcoin, not Jihan Wu's monopoly:

I very much doubt that any one entity will ever have 50% of the computational power. The botnet operators will bow to the whims of the community because it's the community that ultimately gives bitcoins value. What good is a giant load of bitcoins if you don't have anyone willing to give you something in exchange for them?

Eventually the largest merchants and money exchangers will control what is "standard" bitcoin.

Take the "50-coiners" scenario, and imagine that they manage to get 75% of the CPU power on their side.

But imagine that the biggest merchants and money exchangers are more conservative, and are in the 25% minority.  I think they will be-- I don't think they'll be the ones in the business of generating coins (they'll be busy selling products or doing the exchange thing).

What happens?

Well, the block chain splits.  Transactions using coins minted before the split will get added to both block chains, and accepted by everybody.

Transactions involving "50-coins" (generated after the split) will be accepted on the 50-coin chain, rejected on the 25-coin chain.  And vice-versa.

"50-coiners" would quickly find out that they couldn't get rid of their newly minted money because who wants bitcoins that are rejected by the biggest money exchangers or merchants?

If the big merchants and money exchangers disagreed, I bet you'd see Bitcoin clients that ONLY accepted pre-split coins and did no coin generation (since those transactions would be accepted by everybody).  If it was never resolved, I think the number of Bitcoins at the time of the split would become "the number of Bitcoins, period,"  because most people will not want to use money that is accepted some places and not others.

Replace "50-coiners" with BUcoiners and 25-coin with Core. There you have it.

Check the tweets here too:

https://medium.com/@WhalePanda/how-bitcoin-unlimited-btu-will-be-erased-169977ecb3bb#.8lzo1psxc

Get ready to dump BUcoin and double your BTC stack if the unfortunate event happens.

[1714970641]

1714970641

[jonald_fyookball]

What does BU have to do with the TxOut script referenced in your quote?

Nothing.

Do you even know what you're talking about?

[AngryDwarf]

It's an interesting conversation. But back then I presume Satoshi was designer, miner, node, user, developer (judge jury and executioner all in one). I am lead to believe he would be putting in blocksize increasing code when needed. But this isn't happening.

[pereira4]

What does BU have to do with the TxOut script referenced in your quote?

Nothing.

Do you even know what you're talking about?

It was 100% probability that you or franky1 would make the first reply (shitpost). I hope Roger Ver-y Poor is paying you well.

You of course choose to ignore the fact that satoshi basically said fees are there for a reason, and how the idea of a secondary software is stupid.

Keep dreaming, BU is already dead, so is Jihan Wu and anyone that tries to fuck around too much.

[AngryDwarf]

Look up incentive section in the white paper. Block rewards are the initial incentive, followed by fee competition between miners (to keep fees low).
No mention of creating artificial scarcity in the blockchain to start a fee war between users, or did I miss it?

[jonald_fyookball]

What does BU have to do with the TxOut script referenced in your quote?

Nothing.

Do you even know what you're talking about?

It was 100% probability that you or franky1 would make the first reply (shitpost). I hope Roger Ver-y Poor is paying you well.

You of course choose to ignore the fact that satoshi basically said fees are there for a reason, and how the idea of a secondary software is stupid.

Keep dreaming, BU is already dead, so is Jihan Wu and anyone that tries to fuck around too much.

so basically.... no.... you don't know what you're talking about.

Nothing in the protocol changes about fees under BU.  They will operate as they've operated for years.

Gavin has always had a different opinion from Satoshi on multiple implementations and we've had those
for years as well.  Don't forget: even now, the 25% of the hashing power that comes from BU is already
putting blocks in the chain even if the blocksize is under 1mb for the moment.

[Lauda]

This statement has become quite ironic, hasn't it?

[Carlton Banks]

Don't forget: even now, the 25% of the hashing power that comes from BU is already
putting blocks in the chain even if the blocksize is under 1mb for the moment

BU will have 100% of it's own hashrate, when it actually becomes a coin. It might happen sooner than anyone expects


Bitcoiners hold all the cards jonald, i.e. the nodes. It would be so incredibly easy to force BU to fork away from Bitcoin, and all you're achieving is building the support for making that happen. Thanks for helping

[franky1]

LOL

well if everyone just stuck with "core"
there are still many versions

0.8-0.14
all with different lines of code settings and rules(i would mention 0.1-0.7 but then the rules really do get funky... thank you sipa for the levelDB bug)

some have mining settings in them to only make blocks of 0.75mb
some have fee priority. some have different relay fee limits
some have good some have bad fee estimation functions

but oh wait.. you will backtrack and defend different versions suddenly. but then argue all you worry about truly is that its not created by king maxwell.

do you know why satoshi disappeared. because everyone 'depended' on satoshi as king.. and he wanted it to be an open source project with no king.

P.S if your stance is only core should be on the network then admit your a centralist, get it over with

[dinofelis]

Bitcoiners hold all the cards jonald, i.e. the nodes.

Don't over estimate the importance of full node wallets that are not related to mining.  In as much as they may be an indicator of the preferences of the user that runs it, and hence, the choices he might make in the market if there was a hard fork, full nodes that are not related to mining have very little technical importance, and have almost no influence on the block chain, which is built by miners and their nodes.  Yes, nodes help somewhat in improving the traffic over the P2P network, but this is not a necessity.  At its bare minimum, the bitcoin network would almost be the same if all users connected with light wallets to the full nodes of their preferred miners ; exchanges will of course run all kinds of nodes because they want to have people trade all possible kinds of forks.  So exchanges will not "impose" any fork.
The only real reason to run a full node, is that you want to verify *for yourself* that the block chain one is selling to you, is the "right" one according to the rule set that you've decided to implement in the software you're running.  And as such, you're also helping to transmit this chain to other full nodes.  But they don't need you, they can connect directly to the miner node of their preferences.  You don't need other full nodes: you can also connect to the miner of your preferences.  The P2P aspect of the bitcoin network is nice, but not needed: the "servers" are the miners and a node is in fact nothing more than a client, reading its stuff from the server.  The P2P network helps to get the traffic to your place, but that's it.  The producer/server of block chains are the miners, and they all have a full copy of course on their nodes.  That's all you need.  And if you want to send a transaction, you can also send it directly to one of the nodes of a miner of your preferences.  Miners of same preferences have also all reasons to get direct node connections, to get their blocks as soon as possible amongst themselves, and not waste time on orphaned blocks.

So "nodes voting" doesn't mean more than firefox "voting" over the contents of a web server.  It won't influence the contents on the web server.  But of course, it gives an idea of what the user wants, and that's important... in the market, if there is a hard fork.
But that's all.  The importance of full nodes is very much over estimated.

[FiendCoin]

BU supporters are something else, one has to wonder if they are paid shills? I just can't understand how any rational person can be pro BU? If you want to be anti-core, fine, I understand the conspiracy theories. How about find a another solution. Don't throw in with the Chinese just to spite core, that's lunacy.

[7788bitcoin]

I guess no matter whether BU or Segwit wins, at the end of the day, there will still be "SOMEBODY" trying to mess up the bitcoin network. Just that both camps are trying to solve the blocksize issue using different approaches... Even if Segwit gets activated, the core still need to increase the block size eventually.

[dinofelis]

I guess no matter whether BU or Segwit wins

The way I understand crypto, none will win.

[tvbcof]

BU supporters are something else, one has to wonder if they are paid shills? I just can't understand how any rational person can be pro BU? If you want to be anti-core, fine, I understand the conspiracy theories. How about find a another solution. Don't throw in with the Chinese just to spite core, that's lunacy.

One feature that a lot of the 'surprise adversaries' of Bitcoin seem to have is that they seem to have a history of brushes with the law at some point.  Mosty post-Bitcoin.  Ver, Voorhees, and Dr. LoweLife (cypherdoc) are the examples I can think of off the top of my head.  The 'conspiracy theory' here, of course, is that they made a deal.

That may or may not apply to the ankle-bitter types who continue to work trolltalk.  Some of them may have made a dime on Bitcoin and fucked up with TPTB.  Others were probably just offered a slightly more profitable arrangement than your typical ad-footer-spammer.  And a few particularly dull ones may genuinely believe that BU is something other than a simple bloat attack on the Bitcoin system I suppose.

My best guess on Andresen is in his soul simply a normie who loves big brother and the status quo.  I think he was in to early to have been implanted by the deep state.

[AliceWonderMiscreations]

BU supporters are something else, one has to wonder if they are paid shills? I just can't understand how any rational person can be pro BU? If you want to be anti-core, fine, I understand the conspiracy theories. How about find a another solution. Don't throw in with the Chinese just to spite core, that's lunacy.

It breaks my heart to see "the Chinese" used so often as an excuse.

What the fuck have they done, other than being born in a country in Asia?

I was hoping our species was evolving past that kind of bigotry.

If there is collusion between them to hurt bitcoin then show what that collusion is, and judge them based upon that collusion. Don't judge them based upon their nationality, that's called bigotry.

[Lauda]

BU will have 100% of it's own hashrate, when it actually becomes a coin. It might happen sooner than anyone expects

Minor correction: BTU, not BU.

thank you sipa for the levelDB bug)

You can't let that go, can you? Why don't you mention the bug that made bitcoin.com mine an invalid block?

P.S if your stance is only core should be on the network then admit your a centralist, get it over with

Nope, Knots should also be on the network. BU should not.

Don't over estimate the importance of full node wallets that are not related to mining. 

Ironically, you're underestimating the importance of having a decentralized & strong network of full nodes.

[AngryDwarf]

P.S if your stance is only core should be on the network then admit your a centralist, get it over with

Nope, Knots should also be on the network. BU should not.

Why should be Bitcoin Knots be allowed on the network as well as Bitcoin Core? Is because of the human developer behind it rather than the protocol? If bitcoin survived Satoshi leaving the project, it can survive anyone else leaving the project.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1330770.msg18139006#msg18139006

[dinofelis]

Don't over estimate the importance of full node wallets that are not related to mining.  

Ironically, you're underestimating the importance of having a decentralized & strong network of full nodes.

That is like saying that having more people running firefox looking at your web pages makes your server distributed.

Non mining nodes don't contribute anything (or almost anything) to the "decentralized" nature of the network.  And the simple proof for that is that it is extremely easy to "Sybil attack" this amount of nodes.  One can easily fire up 100 000 nodes on Amazon and swamp the entire network.  

It is exactly because of this *unimportance* of non mining nodes, that Proof of Work exists.  Of course, in Satoshi's paper you will read about the importance of many nodes, but that is because for Satoshi, nodes and miners were the same.  All nodes were miners.  THEN of course, it is important.  But non-mining nodes don't contribute (almost) ANYTHING to the decentralization of the coin.  The ONLY thing they do contribute, is communication paths, so that no censoring of communication between the user wallet and the miner can take place.  But with direct connections between miners (who have to be interconnected to not get their blocks orphaned) and every user wallet, no intermediate nodes play any role (apart if the internet were censored and they provide extra pathways).

If the amount of nodes indicated anything about the decentralisation of bitcoin, proof of work would not have been necessary.  It is because it is meaningless, that one needs to introduce it.  

This is a simple aspect of the dynamics of crypto currencies: nodes that don't "vote" (no proof of stake), that do not "mine" and that are only communication hubs that can be bypassed between user wallets and miners, are useless if the direct internet connections are good enough between wallets and miners.  However, full nodes ARE important for their owners, so that they can check FOR THEMSELVES that what their wallet sees, comes from the right block chain and that nobody is talking shit to their wallet.  But it is the only use.

This funny little fact is of course full force denied by people wanting to keep small blocks for other reasons and claim that it would bring "centralization" because there would be less hapless PCs running on the network, downloading the block chain from the miners.  But the "servers of block chain" are the miner related nodes.  And whether more or less "firefox" browers (non-mining nodes) are downloading them doesn't matter.

I run an (empty) bitcoin node at home.  I could fire up 20 of them.  What difference would that make ?  I can switch off my node.  What difference would that make ?  I can run a core 0.14 and a BU node on the same machine (which I will probably do soon).  What does that even mean ?

[franky1]

BU will have 100% of it's own hashrate, when it actually becomes a coin. It might happen sooner than anyone expects

Minor correction: BTU, not BU.

BTU.. the reddit script buzzword competition.. along with "ad-hom" "bucoin" "conservative" and the other obvious buzzwords blockstreamers have to use in their scripts.. the buzzword game is getting obvious

thank you sipa for the levelDB bug)

You can't let that go, can you? Why don't you mention the bug that made bitcoin.com mine an invalid block?

the ONE that got rejected in 3 seconds and was of no drama or consequence..
how about the many made by non BU on a more than weekly bases
https://blockchain.info/orphaned-blocks

lol love how you exaggerate one but underplay the thousands when in reality they are all the same... rejected in seconds and of no long term consequence

P.S if your stance is only core should be on the network then admit your a centralist, get it over with

Nope, Knots should also be on the network. BU should not.

oh Knots...because its Luke JR... (blockstream contractor)... too obvious

Don't over estimate the importance of full node wallets that are not related to mining.  

Ironically, you're underestimating the importance of having a decentralized & strong network of full nodes.

how can you have decentralised network if everything is blockstream.
atleast admit the truth. 'distributed' does not mean decentralised.

a bank with 95,000 bank branches around the world does not make a bank decentralised. it just makes it distributed.

[dinofelis]

how can you have decentralised network if everything is blockstream.
atleast admit the truth. 'distributed' does not mean decentralised.

a bank with 95,000 bank branches around the world does not make a bank decentralised. it just makes it distributed.

Indeed.  Although we may be thinking about slightly different aspects.  Non-mining nodes are indeed a form of distributed proxy server of the block chain(s), but the real sources of those chains are the miners.  The distributedness of the network (many nodes) make for an easier downloading, communication and so on, but as long as the principal servers are "up and running", their proxies (the non-mining nodes) are only that: proxy servers.  They copy the block chain of their flavour from their principal server, and help speed up its download.  They also help sending transactions up the chain to their principal "miner" server, but those wanting their transactions to get there, can just as well send it directly.

Again, the amount of non-mining nodes is essentially immaterial - apart for their owners, who use it to verify for themselves the chain they want to use (in as much as one is available by miners), and do not want to depend on unverified third-party information.

[AngryDwarf]

Again, the amount of non-mining nodes is essentially immaterial - apart for their owners, who use it to verify for themselves the chain they want to use (in as much as one is available by miners), and do not want to depend on unverified third-party information.

Non mining nodes validate blocks on the network. So non mining nodes prevent the miners from creating larger blocks if they are running nodes that do not allow larger blocks. Otherwise miners would already be creating larger blocks without fear of orphanage.

[dinofelis]

Again, the amount of non-mining nodes is essentially immaterial - apart for their owners, who use it to verify for themselves the chain they want to use (in as much as one is available by miners), and do not want to depend on unverified third-party information.

Non mining nodes validate blocks on the network. So non mining nodes prevent the miners from creating larger blocks if they are running nodes that do not allow larger blocks.

What does that mean "validate" ?  It means: write it on their own copy of the block chain.   So if you own a node, you check for yourself that the block chain is validated, instead of having to rely on another node telling you so (with a light wallet).  But that's it.  

But they don't prevent miners anything.  Miners make blocks and set them on their nodes to be distributed on the network.  All USERS agreeing with those miner's rules will take the block chain and the new blocks from those miners' nodes, eventually directly if no other nearby nodes propagate them by configuring their nodes so that they connect directly to the miners' nodes, or by having their wallets connect to one of these nodes.

If you install a node that doesn't validate a block from a miner, that will not stop that miner from making that block and from getting it to the users agreeing with him ; more importantly, it will not stop miners agreeing with the previous miner from building on that block.  

Now, if your node doesn't agree, it stops downloading that block chain.  And that's it.  It won't download it, it won't propagate it.  But that won't stop users agreeing with these miners, and those miners amongst themselves, from building this chain, validating it amongst themselves, and use it as *the* block chain.

"non-validation" by a non-mining node doesn't stop that block from being mined or used.  It is as if your node simply didn't exist.  And it certainly won't stop other miners from mining on top of that block if THEY validate it.  If your node is waiting for a block that is never mined, it simply stops.

Otherwise miners would already be creating larger blocks without fear of orphanage.

No, their fear is that their peers, the other miners, will orphan it.  The only entities in a crypto network that can "orphan" a block are other miners, who build on a previous block to make a longer chain according to their rules.  No non-mining node can orphan whatever block.  It can refuse a block, or it can find a longer chain.  It is the existence of the longer chain (made by a miner) that orphans a block.  Not a non-mining node.

[jonald_fyookball]

BU supporters are something else, one has to wonder if they are paid shills? I just can't understand how any rational person can be pro BU?

It's a simple idea.

Blocksize should not be part of the protocol rules.

If the debate's taught us anything, its how dangerous it can be to have
this specification hard coded into the software.

Instead remove it and let the miners decide via the longest chain consensus.

  Others were probably just offered a slightly more profitable arrangement than your typical ad-footer-spammer. 

So you actually believe there's paid shills (because opinions different than yours couldn't possibly have merit, right?)

[AngryDwarf]

<snip>

I think I see what you are saying here. As long as the miners have good connections between themselves and the majority of hash power, they can create the longest chain.
Only problem is, without the rest of the network consensus, the wider bitcoin eco-system ends in orphan hell?

[dinofelis]

It's a simple idea.

Blocksize should not be part of the protocol rules.

If the debate's taught us anything, its how dangerous it can be to have
this specification hard coded into the software.

Instead remove it and let the miners decide via the longest chain consensus.

Bingo.  

However, consensus dynamics is such that it IS now part of the protocol rules.  I fully agree with you that it was *extremely stupid*.  But now that block size became an *economic parameter*, whether one wants it or not, it IS locked in as a protocol rule.  The same rule that makes that one cannot find consensus over "redoing the last few blocks and leave out a few transactions", the same rule that makes that one cannot "jump a block reward halving", the same rule that makes that one cannot change the 10 minutes into 2 minutes.  Because all these parameters are economic parameters, meaning: if you change them, some get an advantage, and others, a disadvantage.   2 or 3 years ago, most probably the block size was still a technical parameter and could have been changed under "neutral consensus".  But now it is an economic parameter.  It is locked in.  Only centralization or a hard fork with two coins will be able to change it if the immutability mechanism means anything.

My idea is that people didn't really understand "consensus dynamics" and all its consequences.

[BillyBobZorton]

This statement has become quite ironic, hasn't it?

It's indeed ironic seeing Gavin point out the very valid point of how a fee market and a blocksize limit was needed in order to avoid nonsensical transaction spam.

Also very nice to read satoshi point out the problems of alternative software. Some people confuse decentralized development with hard forking the project and changing fundamentals of it while wanting it to call it the same.

[dinofelis]

<snip>

I think I see what you are saying here. As long as the miners have good connections between themselves and the majority of hash power, they can create the longest chain.
Only problem is, without the rest of the network consensus, the wider bitcoin eco-system ends in orphan hell?

There is no such thing as an orphan hell in the network.  Let us define clearly what an orphaned block is: it is a valid block, but on which other miners decided not to build any more.  So only MINERS can orphan blocks.

BTW, miners (of same protocol) have good reasons to have very fast connections between them, because they need to know very quickly when a new good block (according to their rules) is mined.  They will not wait for it to be randomly propagated through the P2P network, because the time they need to receive it is lost hash power for them. It is this strong, fast network of equally-minded miners that is the "block chain principal server" (for that protocol).

What you can have, is that nodes come to a grinding halt, if their validation rules don't find any valid chain.  This happens if no miner produces such a chain.   Imagine that I write a modification of bitcoin core, with a soft fork, so that only blocks less than 500 KB are valid.  If I install this software, and connect it to the bitcoin network, it will download a certain part of the chain, until it finds the first block bigger than 500 KB.  And then it stops.  Because no other block, less than 500 KB, and directly built on that last block, is around.  I simply have a stalled node.  Did I "orphan" the rest of the bitcoin block chain ?  Not at all.  The rest of the chain is simply invalid according to my node, which will wait forever for the next valid block that no miner will make.

Suppose now that I fire up 100 000 nodes on amazon with this software.  Of course, I will mess up somewhat the bitcoin network, because many nodes will ONLY have connections to my amazon nodes which have stopped.  But after a while, the normal nodes will find out that my overwhelming majority of nodes do not use the same protocol, and that a GOOD chain does exist.  They will end up finding one another, banning my nodes as confused, and I won't be able, even with my overwhelming node majority, to bring down bitcoin to accept my soft fork, wind back the chain to my last valid block some years ago, and restart from there.  Even though I have more that 95% of the nodes in my hand on Amazon.

If it really were that simple that one can impose rules by having a large majority of non mining nodes, then I'm sure that someone would already have fired up 100 000 nodes on Amazon doing that.  The very fact that bitcoin has never undergone this, simply means that non-mining nodes are not that important.

And as a consequence, that the argument against bigger blocks, "because of less nodes and hence more centralization" is totally bogus.  But it is a hard myth that will not die.

[AngryDwarf]

<snip>

Thanks for the explanation. So basically miners will decide which node implementation is the official implementation, and which node implementation is trying to mess up the network? (to get back on topic)

[dinofelis]

<snip>

Thanks for the explanation. So basically miners will decide which node implementation is the official implementation, and which node implementation is trying to mess up the network? (to get back on topic)

Miners make block chains.  Users (with wallets) use them, and connect to nodes.  They can run their own full node (the only real reason to run a full node), connect to a "random node on the network" with a light wallet (and trust that node), or connect directly to the miner's network.  If the node to which they connect, runs the same protocol as the miner's (or a more permissive one), they will obtain a copy of the block chain made by those miners and their wallet will do things according to that block chain.

If they don't, well, they have a stalled node, connect to a stalled node, will not see the right balances, and may produce invalid transactions.  

If there are competing miners, with competing block chains, then the protocol choice of the node you use (one of the miners' protocols, otherwise, see above) will select the block chain corresponding to that protocol.  It is as if you used "that specific coin".  We have a hard fork and two coins now, because there are two living block chains.

So, essentially, miners make block chains, and users (with wallets) connect to a node (their own, or another one) that has a protocol that corresponds to the block chain at hand.  If there is only one block chain, they have no choice, there is only one chain.  If there are several chains, then there are several coins, and their choice of node selects their choice of coin.

(warning: their transactions can be valid on both chains in some circumstances).

Miners serve block chains.  Wallets browse block chains.  Nodes are proxies to block chain servers.

[BillyBobZorton]

<snip>

I think I see what you are saying here. As long as the miners have good connections between themselves and the majority of hash power, they can create the longest chain.
Only problem is, without the rest of the network consensus, the wider bitcoin eco-system ends in orphan hell?

There is no such thing as an orphan hell in the network.  Let us define clearly what an orphaned block is: it is a valid block, but on which other miners decided not to build any more.  So only MINERS can orphan blocks.

BTW, miners (of same protocol) have good reasons to have very fast connections between them, because they need to know very quickly when a new good block (according to their rules) is mined.  They will not wait for it to be randomly propagated through the P2P network, because the time they need to receive it is lost hash power for them. It is this strong, fast network of equally-minded miners that is the "block chain principal server" (for that protocol).

What you can have, is that nodes come to a grinding halt, if their validation rules don't find any valid chain.  This happens if no miner produces such a chain.   Imagine that I write a modification of bitcoin core, with a soft fork, so that only blocks less than 500 KB are valid.  If I install this software, and connect it to the bitcoin network, it will download a certain part of the chain, until it finds the first block bigger than 500 KB.  And then it stops.  Because no other block, less than 500 KB, and directly built on that last block, is around.  I simply have a stalled node.  Did I "orphan" the rest of the bitcoin block chain ?  Not at all.  The rest of the chain is simply invalid according to my node, which will wait forever for the next valid block that no miner will make.

Suppose now that I fire up 100 000 nodes on amazon with this software.  Of course, I will mess up somewhat the bitcoin network, because many nodes will ONLY have connections to my amazon nodes which have stopped.  But after a while, the normal nodes will find out that my overwhelming majority of nodes do not use the same protocol, and that a GOOD chain does exist.  They will end up finding one another, banning my nodes as confused, and I won't be able, even with my overwhelming node majority, to bring down bitcoin to accept my soft fork, wind back the chain to my last valid block some years ago, and restart from there.  Even though I have more that 95% of the nodes in my hand on Amazon.

If it really were that simple that one can impose rules by having a large majority of non mining nodes, then I'm sure that someone would already have fired up 100 000 nodes on Amazon doing that.  The very fact that bitcoin has never undergone this, simply means that non-mining nodes are not that important.

And as a consequence, that the argument against bigger blocks, "because of less nodes and hence more centralization" is totally bogus.  But it is a hard myth that will not die.

Decentralized network = as much nodes as possible run by different, independent entities ideally as physically widespread as possible (people, instead of single rich entities running thousands of nodes, which is only achievable by maintaining a conservative blocksize)

Centralized network = blocksize too big to guarantee that people can run their own nodes

Increasing blocksize = objectively making it harder on average for the people to run nodes = objectively centralizing the network by doing so

Not that difficult to understand.

*This does not mean 1MB should be forever, but BUcoiners aren't considering the tradeoffs as usual.

[AliceWonderMiscreations]

What you can have, is that nodes come to a grinding halt, if their validation rules don't find any valid chain.  This happens if no miner produces such a chain.   Imagine that I write a modification of bitcoin core, with a soft fork, so that only blocks less than 500 KB are valid.  If I install this software, and connect it to the bitcoin network, it will download a certain part of the chain, until it finds the first block bigger than 500 KB.  And then it stops.  Because no other block, less than 500 KB, and directly built on that last block, is around.  I simply have a stalled node.  Did I "orphan" the rest of the bitcoin block chain ?  Not at all.  The rest of the chain is simply invalid according to my node, which will wait forever for the next valid block that no miner will make.

Suppose now that I fire up 100 000 nodes on amazon with this software.  Of course, I will mess up somewhat the bitcoin network, because many nodes will ONLY have connections to my amazon nodes which have stopped.  But after a while, the normal nodes will find out that my overwhelming majority of nodes do not use the same protocol, and that a GOOD chain does exist.  They will end up finding one another, banning my nodes as confused, and I won't be able, even with my overwhelming node majority, to bring down bitcoin to accept my soft fork, wind back the chain to my last valid block some years ago, and restart from there.  Even though I have more that 95% of the nodes in my hand on Amazon.

Can we call that a UACF - User Activated Cluster F***

[dinofelis]

Decentralized network = as much nodes as possible run by different, independent entities ideally as physically widespread as possible (people, instead of single rich entities running thousands of nodes, which is only achievable by maintaining a conservative blocksize)

Centralized network = blocksize too big to guarantee that people can run their own nodes

Increasing blocksize = objectively making it harder on average for the people to run nodes = objectively centralizing the network by doing so

Not that difficult to understand.

*This does not mean 1MB should be forever, but BUcoiners aren't considering the tradeoffs as usual.

Myth.   Bollocks.  Non-mining nodes are simply miner-chain proxies.  You are right that a "decentralized network" consists of independent nodes, but a crypto currency is not a "decentralized network" but a "decentralized block chain".  And that is built by miners.

After all is said and done, the "network" doesn't matter, the block chain does.  The crypto currency is the block chain, not "the network".

A (hopefully) decentralized network is for instance, Tor, and matters for communication.  But a crypto currency is not about communication but about a consensus ledger: the block chain.

The only way in which a "decentralized network" matters, is if there were some difficulty in the *network connection* to *obtain the block chain*.   For instance, if the Great Wall of China were blocking some miner nodes, and one has to get through via a P2P way in some or other way.  THEN the "decentralized network" matters.  But if there are good internet connections, and you don't need anonymity of communication (like with Tor), then that decentralized network doesn't matter.

Because the crypto currency is the block chain: the consensus ledger.  And that is built by miners.  Not by non-mining nodes.
And you can obtain it directly from the miner if you want to.  You don't need the P2P network for that.

[tvbcof]

Others were probably just offered a slightly more profitable arrangement than your typical ad-footer-spammer.

So you actually believe there's paid shills (because opinions different than yours couldn't possibly have merit, right?)

You snipped the very next sentence where I said just the opposite.  And didn't bother to indicate that you made an edit.  You expect anyone to accept any of your bullshit when you display such primitive and transparent duplicity?

[David Rabahy]

I feel sad.  I want Core and BU to come together but I fear they won't.  I don't know what to do.  I have to wait until they do come together or split.  If they come together then I will be ok.  If they split then I will have to figure out how to move/split my investment.  This violates my desire to be lazy.

[jonald_fyookball]

Others were probably just offered a slightly more profitable arrangement than your typical ad-footer-spammer.

So you actually believe there's paid shills (because opinions different than yours couldn't possibly have merit, right?)

You snipped the very next sentence where I said just the opposite.  And didn't bother to indicate that you made an edit.  You expect anyone to accept any of your bullshit when you display such primitive and transparent duplicity?

Oh geez, sorry I should have said "you believe we're either paid shills or stupid" right?

[franky1]

seems dinofelis is on a scripted mission

objective try to brainwash sheep into thinking nodes are not important.

i think he is new to the community and doesnt yet grasp the deeper details of consensus or bitcoin,, and has only been taught the highschool level concept.

if coinbase (non-mining node) stopped getting blocks from pool X.
pool X cant spend its reward with coinbase and thus hashing for nothing.

the nodes work together to get a single agreed chain of blocks.
the nodes agree on what should go next ontop.

pools blocks do get orphaned off where by a different pool gets chosen as the better block creator.
this happens many times a week

pools are NOT the boss.
nodes are the boss

pools are just the secretary. collating data, but having to collate it in the way the boss is happy to sign off and file. if the boss disagree's he will bin their work and get another secretary.

nodes=boss
pools=secretary
devs=janitors

[tvbcof]

Others were probably just offered a slightly more profitable arrangement than your typical ad-footer-spammer.

So you actually believe there's paid shills (because opinions different than yours couldn't possibly have merit, right?)

You snipped the very next sentence where I said just the opposite.  And didn't bother to indicate that you made an edit.  You expect anyone to accept any of your bullshit when you display such primitive and transparent duplicity?

Oh geez, sorry I should have said "you believe we're either paid shills or stupid" right?

Yes.  That's better.

[David Rabahy]

I run a non-mining full node (it entertains me to do so).  I'm delighted to feel like I am contributing in some small way (8 outgoing and 52 incoming connections --> ~200GB per month).  But, I realize if I turn if off then the miners will plow forward mining without me.  The users would have to connect to a miner (or some other non-mining full node).  *If* all of the non-mining full nodes were turned off then the miners would plow forward mining without us.  The users would have to connect to a miner, period.

I think maybe the point is miners don't just mine, they also handle connections from users.  If a miner just mined and didn't handle connections from users then they wouldn't have any transactions to pack into blocks.  I suppose they could do that but they can do that without me.  In fact, to the miners, my non-mining full node just looks like a user (well, except that I do forward transactions that aren't mine to start with).  In fact, miners look like users to other miners.  If a miner restricted their connections to just other miners (those that produced a kept block in the last little while) then they would be ignoring users but hardly suffer at all.  In fact, a miner could not forward transactions it receives to keep other miners from seeing them and so keep the transaction fee to themselves.

So, I guess unrestricted non-mining full nodes do serve a purpose beyond self-checking the blocks the miners announce.  They help tell all miners about new transactions to help avoid hoarding/selfish miners.

Maybe the users should deliberately avoid connecting to miners.

[Lauda]

Non mining nodes don't contribute anything (or almost anything) to the "decentralized" nature of the network.  And the simple proof for that is that it is extremely easy to "Sybil attack" this amount of nodes.  One can easily fire up 100 000 nodes on Amazon and swamp the entire network.  

I call bullshit on this flawed understanding. Since "one can easily" fire up 100 000 nodes, I challenge you to prove your statement. Do it now, or stop spreading nonsense.

BTU.. the reddit script buzzword competition.. along with "ad-hom" "bucoin" "conservative" and the other obvious buzzwords blockstreamers have to use in their scripts.. the buzzword game is getting obvious

That's how it will get listed on exchanges, and that's what it is. BTU altcoin.

oh Knots...because its Luke JR... (blockstream contractor)... too obvious

It is still not Core.

how can you have decentralised network if everything is blockstream.

It is all.. open source, run by various individuals. My node is not Blockstream.

seems dinofelis is on a scripted mission

objective try to brainwash sheep into thinking nodes are not important.
-snip-

On this rare occasion, I definitely agree with you. Their rhetoric is quite obvious at this point.

[jonald_fyookball]

Others were probably just offered a slightly more profitable arrangement than your typical ad-footer-spammer.

So you actually believe there's paid shills (because opinions different than yours couldn't possibly have merit, right?)

You snipped the very next sentence where I said just the opposite.  And didn't bother to indicate that you made an edit.  You expect anyone to accept any of your bullshit when you display such primitive and transparent duplicity?

Oh geez, sorry I should have said "you believe we're either paid shills or stupid" right?

Yes.  That's better.

That's fine.  You're entitled to your opinion.  Meanwhile the rest of us are discussing the actual issues of the debate.

[BillyBobZorton]

Decentralized network = as much nodes as possible run by different, independent entities ideally as physically widespread as possible (people, instead of single rich entities running thousands of nodes, which is only achievable by maintaining a conservative blocksize)

Centralized network = blocksize too big to guarantee that people can run their own nodes

Increasing blocksize = objectively making it harder on average for the people to run nodes = objectively centralizing the network by doing so

Not that difficult to understand.

*This does not mean 1MB should be forever, but BUcoiners aren't considering the tradeoffs as usual.

Myth.   Bollocks.  Non-mining nodes are simply miner-chain proxies.  You are right that a "decentralized network" consists of independent nodes, but a crypto currency is not a "decentralized network" but a "decentralized block chain".  And that is built by miners.

After all is said and done, the "network" doesn't matter, the block chain does.  The crypto currency is the block chain, not "the network".

A (hopefully) decentralized network is for instance, Tor, and matters for communication.  But a crypto currency is not about communication but about a consensus ledger: the block chain.

The only way in which a "decentralized network" matters, is if there were some difficulty in the *network connection* to *obtain the block chain*.   For instance, if the Great Wall of China were blocking some miner nodes, and one has to get through via a P2P way in some or other way.  THEN the "decentralized network" matters.  But if there are good internet connections, and you don't need anonymity of communication (like with Tor), then that decentralized network doesn't matter.

Because the crypto currency is the block chain: the consensus ledger.  And that is built by miners.  Not by non-mining nodes.
And you can obtain it directly from the miner if you want to.  You don't need the P2P network for that.

Nonsense. A "decentralized blockchain" is only decentralized if its network is decentralized too, otherwise it's basically JihanCoin, but I guess that's what BUcoiners want.

Bitcoin is exactly like Tor, a censorship resistant tool, otherwise it would have no value, since we already got Paypal and so on. The fact that the network is backed by decentralized computers all over the world is what makes it strong against a global attacker (the government when they remove cash will be the most obvious and biggest global attacker). The fact that there is a conservative blocksize to allow for this to happen and then the fees getting increasingly more expensive is a feature. Unfortunately decentralized onchain transactions are expensive, which is why LN is the only way out if you want to scale globally. Ideally we would scale globally onchain but that is impossible. Segwit and additional blocksize increases will happen would allow to scale onchain along the way too but forget about any relevant amount of transactions onchain cheap and fast within a decentralized cryptocurrency, that is the actual myth.

If bitcoin stays as it is forever it is good enough for me as gold 2.0 anyway.

[tvbcof]

Oh geez, sorry I should have said "you believe we're either paid shills or stupid" right?

Yes.  That's better.

That's fine.  You're entitled to your opinion.  Meanwhile the rest of us are discussing the actual issues of the debate.

Highly dubious claim.  Most of these 'actual issues' were 'discussed' years ago and very few are new or original.  Seems to me that the ones which are perceived to have some traction among the newbie class are recycled ad-nauseum even though they've been put to bed multiple times.

[jonald_fyookball]

Oh geez, sorry I should have said "you believe we're either paid shills or stupid" right?

Yes.  That's better.

That's fine.  You're entitled to your opinion.  Meanwhile the rest of us are discussing the actual issues of the debate.

Highly dubious claim.  Most of these 'actual issues' were 'discussed' years ago and very few are new or original.  Seems to me that the ones which are perceived to have some traction among the newbie class are recycled ad-nauseum even though they've been put to bed multiple times.

You are correct:  The issues aren't new at all.  We still need to increase the blocksize.
Now more than ever with the recent congestion.

Put to bed?  Hardly.
 
Core and blockstream intentions now more clear than ever to more people, and
the community is not accepting core's roadamp.  Meanwhile BU has more support
than XT and Classic and increasing.

[AngryDwarf]

seems dinofelis is on a scripted mission

objective try to brainwash sheep into thinking nodes are not important.
-snip-

On this rare occasion, I definitely agree with you. Their rhetoric is quite obvious at this point.

Thank you both for reminding me about the importance of nodes. I almost swallowed the logic.

[FiendCoin]

BU supporters are something else, one has to wonder if they are paid shills? I just can't understand how any rational person can be pro BU?

It's a simple idea.

Blocksize should not be part of the protocol rules.

If the debate's taught us anything, its how dangerous it can be to have
this specification hard coded into the software.

Instead remove it and let the miners decide via the longest chain consensus.

  Others were probably just offered a slightly more profitable arrangement than your typical ad-footer-spammer. 

So you actually believe there's paid shills (because opinions different than yours couldn't possibly have merit, right?)

There is ZERO merit in centralized Bitcoin mining and control in CHINA or any other country.

BU supports centralized mining and control of Bitcoin in China, PERIOD.

[AliceWonderMiscreations]

Mining will always take place where the power is cheaper. Block size isn't a factor, disk space is peanuts compared to the electricity used.

If you want more mining to take place outside of China, then find a way to lower the cost of electricity outside of China.

[AngryDwarf]

Mining will always take place where the power is cheaper. Block size isn't a factor, disk space is peanuts compared to the electricity used.

If you want more mining to take place outside of China, then find a way to lower the cost of electricity outside of China.

Or China may become a more expensive place to mine in time, so they will simply shutup shop and reopen in the next low cost country.

[FiendCoin]

Mining will always take place where the power is cheaper. Block size isn't a factor, disk space is peanuts compared to the electricity used.

If you want more mining to take place outside of China, then find a way to lower the cost of electricity outside of China.

Or China may become a more expensive place to mine in time, so they will simply shutup shop and reopen in the next low cost country.

This is about more than just the cost of electricity or what size a block should be, this is about a small group of people trying to force their will onto the rest of us. There needs to be a way for the majority to vote instead of decisions coming down to a handful of miners with their own personal agendas. If we go by nodes, BU is not very popular, nor has it ever been. Both XT and classic have had far more nodes in the past than BU.

[calkob]

I think you are grasping at straws here trying to link these statements by Gavin and Satoshi to the current blocksize debate.  I am not to worried about BU i doubt it will ever get enough support to HF and if it does than we shall see what happens.  If we have to fight for bitcoins survival then maybe its not worth it.  Bitcoin should be able to survive on its own.

[tvbcof]

Mining will always take place where the power is cheaper. Block size isn't a factor, disk space is peanuts compared to the electricity used.

If you want more mining to take place outside of China, then find a way to lower the cost of electricity outside of China.

I would generally agree, but I do suspect that in some instances government policy can have at least a temporary impact.  e.g., under more totalitarian regimes it may not be very practical to manufacture hardware unless export procedures are followed.

To your point about energy availability, I find the hypothesis that sovereign nations are being aligned globally in anticipation of a so-called 'one-world technocracy' to be credible.  One of the main tools used to engineer this leveling would be accessibility to energy.  Of course such a thing as Bitcoin would probably not be considered significantly and almost certainly not predicted.  On a macro level the policies would be a spray pattern aimed at industry and infrastructure generally.  But (if the hypothesis has a basis in reality) it absolutely factors into many corner-case things such as Bitcoin and should be considered by those who have such a corner-case interest.  For this reason it is valuable for those with a stake in Bitcoin to keep tabs on global geo-political developments.  A good real-world example here would be the Trump administration's apparent willingness to end the blockade on the use of domestic coal.

[dinofelis]

seems dinofelis is on a scripted mission

objective try to brainwash sheep into thinking nodes are not important.

i think he is new to the community and doesnt yet grasp the deeper details of consensus or bitcoin,, and has only been taught the highschool level concept.

if coinbase (non-mining node) stopped getting blocks from pool X.
pool X cant spend its reward with coinbase and thus hashing for nothing.

Coinbase's node is important of course, because coinbase is a USER: what is important with coinbase, is the wallet on it, because coinbase's wallet contains the bitcoins which backs the bitcoin IOU that people trade.  Coinbase is hence a BIG USER, and hence a BIG MARKET PLAYER.  Its wallet is extremely important.

But coinbase could directly connect its node to one of the nodes of a big mining pool.  Whether YOUR non-mining node (and 1000 other non-mining nodes of others) is running, or not, doesn't mean anything to coinbase.  However, the chain that coinbase decides to follow (by choosing a protocol), is the coin that coinbase considers being its wallet.  If miners make two coins, and two chains, then coinbase will decide *what coin* it is trading.

The importance of coinbase's node, its choice of protocol, and hence its choice of chain (if that chain exists and is produced by a miner !  Otherwise, coinbase's node simply halts) comes from the fact that coinbase's wallet is the wallet of a big user.

[dinofelis]

I run a non-mining full node (it entertains me to do so).  I'm delighted to feel like I am contributing in some small way (8 outgoing and 52 incoming connections --> ~200GB per month).  But, I realize if I turn if off then the miners will plow forward mining without me.  The users would have to connect to a miner (or some other non-mining full node).  *If* all of the non-mining full nodes were turned off then the miners would plow forward mining without us.  The users would have to connect to a miner, period.

Bingo. That's my point.

I think maybe the point is miners don't just mine, they also handle connections from users.  If a miner just mined and didn't handle connections from users then they wouldn't have any transactions to pack into blocks.

Absolutely.   We should clearly define what a "miner" is in this respect.  A "miner" is the entity that decides *what* block to build on *which* other block out there, and puts that block at disposal on a node.  A "miner" can be a complex entity, like a mining pool and its customers with mining hardware, selling hash power to the mining pool, or a single entity (solo miner).  The "providers of hash power" are not, in this respect, "miners" as we define it here, because they simply provide hashes, and do not decide upon the block to be built (the contents of the block, the transactions ; the previous block hash, and the protocol according to which it will be built).  The miner, in this conversation, is the entity deciding that, and *hence has a node*.  

As I said before, given the cost of mining, the cost of setting up an efficient node is minuscule compared with it.  There's no point in investing a huge amount in hash rate capacity, and wasting a lot of electricity, and not have a sufficiently efficient node that has strong connections to other miner nodes, because the time wasted to learn about blocks made by other miners, wastes much more money by lost hashing (on orphaned blocks) than the bit of cost of good infrastructure in a strong node, with good network.

So we can presume that a miner node will do everything, if the "proxy network of non mining nodes favorable to him" is too weak, to set up somewhat better node infrastructure that can serve directly its clients, the users, that want to use the block chain he (and his fellow miners on the same protocol) are mining (in other words, his coin).  Especially if that user is an exchange that lists his coin !

This is a bit like torrent: if you want to distribute a file, you can count on other torrent nodes putting your file at disposal (distributed network).  But if your income depends on having this file at disposal, you will make sure that you have enough server capacity to distribute the file yourself on the torrent network, independent of all the other torrent clients refusing your file and/or putting other files at disposal.

Now, as to the users sending transactions, that's the same.  If you are a user that *wants your transaction on the block chain of your choice* and you cannot find enough distributed nodes doing so, then you can connect your WALLET directly to a miner's node, or you can connect your NODE directly to a miner's node, to send your transaction.

Again, the distributed NETWORK of bitcoin nodes is a nice thing that protects against a *communication attack*, but if direct internet links are possible to miner's nodes, and if those miners have installed sufficient network capacity, then the distributed network is *optional*, and cannot impose its will.

[dinofelis]

seems dinofelis is on a scripted mission

objective try to brainwash sheep into thinking nodes are not important.
-snip-

On this rare occasion, I definitely agree with you. Their rhetoric is quite obvious at this point.

I honestly think the brainwashing is on the other side.  I present logical arguments, you only present rethoric and ad hominem.  I indicate the way I see how it functions and I explain it, and you only present (totally erroneous) conspiration.   That's like someone writing open source code, and you arguing that it must for sure contain a virus because of some conspiracy.  Read the code !  Read the arguments and tell me where you think it is wrong, and I'll make you see that you are mistaken (or I will see where I'm mistaken, and I will learn something).

[dinofelis]

This is about more than just the cost of electricity or what size a block should be, this is about a small group of people trying to force their will onto the rest of us. There needs to be a way for the majority to vote instead of decisions coming down to a handful of miners with their own personal agendas.

No.  Because that is the Proof of Work consensus mechanism.  There is no other "voting" mechanism.  Proof of work is the voting mechanism on every part of the consensus system, and is proportional, well, to proof of work.   The "number of nodes voting" has explicitly been avoided, because that's open to a Sybil attack.  The "amount of bitcoin you hold" is not the consensus mechanism chosen (called, proof of stake).

However, the user DOES have of course a strong voting power *if there is a hard fork*: namely, in the market, by putting value on one coin, or another.   And "proof of work" (mining power) will follow the most lucrative block reward (and hence market cap).

But for that to happen, there first needs to be a hard fork: if there are no two block chains available, and not two coins, the user can only accept the single, existing chain, or decide not to use that coin.  But that's it.

Of course, miners will be *sensible* to any market movement, so indirectly, users deciding to leave bitcoin might have an effect on miners.  Miners will be hesitant to make a hard fork, because they may be afraid that the new coin they make, will have a lower return on hash rate than if they continue mining the old chain.   Or they may hesitate remaining on the old chain if they think that users will massively switch to the new coin.     So yes, users have MARKET INFLUENCE on miners.  Direct market influence if there is a hard fork and two coins (there, the users really vote with their money), or indirect "market sentiment" before miners decide to fork or not.

At no point, non mining nodes play a role in this, because the consensus mechanism is not "vote by node" but "vote by proof of work".  Satoshi uses both interchangeably because he considered that every node would also mine.

[dinofelis]

seems dinofelis is on a scripted mission

objective try to brainwash sheep into thinking nodes are not important.
-snip-

On this rare occasion, I definitely agree with you. Their rhetoric is quite obvious at this point.

Thank you both for reminding me about the importance of nodes. I almost swallowed the logic.

This is remarkable as a brainwashing, isn't it.  A long, detailed explanation is swiped away with a single reminder of the Dogma without the slightest bit of logic.  Learn to think for yourself!

Again, the consensus mechanism is proof of work.   And the very proof that nodes do not determine much, comes from the simple argument that one can fire up sufficient nodes on Amazon to swamp every vote.  Someone called me out on that.  That's not the point.  I won't do it, of course, because 1) I know it is useless, and 2) it costs a lot of money.  Much less than a miner spends, but more than I spend on crypto (a few 10 dollars to play with some coins, and more if I want to buy something on the internet).

It does cost money to fire up 100 000 nodes on amazon.  But if one has strongly vested interests in one bitcoin flavor or another, (I'm not), then this cost is more than reasonable.  Why doesn't Roger Ver, or another antagonist in this debate, does so if it were so simple to "vote by node" ?

Why didn't it happen yet ?  Exactly because proof of work is the consensus mechanism, and not proof of node.

Now, I know that an "accepted truth" is hard to change in one's mind.  I also believed that the "bitcoin node network" was important.  I set up an empty node at home to "support the network" (and to study the block chain).  I'm fascinated by the dynamics of decentralized systems.  I study it since quite a while and when I learned about bitcoin, that was a great example.  My main motivation for studying it, is political: I'm an anarchist.  But the more I studied it, the more I saw that things that were "taken for granted" don't fit with the dynamical laws of the system.  And "non mining nodes are important" is one of these dogma's.   It takes a while to understand the exact dynamics of the whole.  And it is very interesting.  It is also very interesting to see how initial misunderstandings can be "locked in" because everybody repeats it.  Maybe there is a "consensus dynamics" over what is to be told about bitcoin too

[dinofelis]

Nonsense. A "decentralized blockchain" is only decentralized if its network is decentralized too, otherwise it's basically JihanCoin, but I guess that's what BUcoiners want.

Bitcoin is exactly like Tor, a censorship resistant tool, otherwise it would have no value, since we already got Paypal and so on. The fact that the network is backed by decentralized computers all over the world is what makes it strong against a global attacker (the government when they remove cash will be the most obvious and biggest global attacker).

Yes, against a *communication* attack.  But that has nothing to do with what the consensus over the ledger, the block chain, is.  That block chain is built by a community of miners.  And is used by user wallets.  As long as there is reliable communication between the miners and the user wallets, that's all a crypto currency needs. 

The distributedness of the *communication network* matters only in that respect.  If unrestricted network access is possible, then it doesn't serve much of a purpose.  Yes, I can use Tor to connect to a remote web site.  Yes, it will be difficult for an attacker to sensor that.  But if my only reason using Tor was to access the web site, and not my anonymity, then I can also connect DIRECTLY to the web site.   That is like using a VPN server.  Yes, if a direct connection is sensored in the country where I live, a VPN is useful, to avoid the "network censoring".  But if I can connect directly, and I don't care about them knowing my IP number, I don't need a VPN.

The other aspect of the distributed node network of bitcoin is its "block chain memory".  Yes, the block chain will never be eradicated from earth, because so many people have a copy of it, that's true.  But for SURE, the miner that is mining the chain has the correct copy he's mining on.  So I don't NEED that "global distributed memory" of block chain, because the "server" I'm using has it automatically.

You can say, yes, but that miner, as a "centralized server", may trick you.  No, he can't.  Because to trick me, he has to produce a block every 10 minutes or so on that chain.  Otherwise, my node following him, will stop.  If this is not the right chain HE thinks honestly he should be working on, then to trick me, he is building a huge orphaned chain and wastes mountains of hash rate.  The risk of me discovering another miner, and leaving his chain behind, while he wasted all this hash power just to trick me, is too big for him.  So I KNOW that a miner who is putting out a growing chain, is providing me with the "best chain according to him" on which he builds.

The best information about the block chain is provided by an active miner.  The "distributed network" only makes sure that this is not forgotten if ever that miner disappears, and makes sure that in case of network censorship, one can still get at it. 
But it doesn't play a role in any form of consensus.  If the internet works well, it is not needed.

[Killerpotleaf]

seems dinofelis is on a scripted mission

objective try to brainwash sheep into thinking nodes are not important.

i think he is new to the community and doesnt yet grasp the deeper details of consensus or bitcoin,, and has only been taught the highschool level concept.

if coinbase (non-mining node) stopped getting blocks from pool X.
pool X cant spend its reward with coinbase and thus hashing for nothing.

the nodes work together to get a single agreed chain of blocks.
the nodes agree on what should go next ontop.

pools blocks do get orphaned off where by a different pool gets chosen as the better block creator.
this happens many times a week

pools are NOT the boss.
nodes are the boss

pools are just the secretary. collating data, but having to collate it in the way the boss is happy to sign off and file. if the boss disagree's he will bin their work and get another secretary.

nodes=boss
pools=secretary
devs=janitors

nodes!=boss

if there is a real disagreement about what is the valid chain the nodes will do NOTHING to solve the disagreement.
coinbase will run 2 F'ing nodes, we will take the disagreement to the markets where everyone can participate.
 
hashrate, node count, dev approval
none of this really matters, none of these actors are truly "the boss"
consider this..

minority fork, minimal node count, and disapproving devs.
thats how ETC was born.
why? because "the boss" put his foot down  

[dinofelis]

nodes!=boss

Thanks for understanding that too.  Bitcoin not being a "proof of node" coin, nodes aren't the boss, like you say.

if there is a real disagreement about what is the valid chain the nodes will do NOTHING to solve the disagreement.
coinbase will run 2 F'ing nodes, we will take the disagreement to the markets where everyone can participate.
 
hashrate, node count, dev approval
none of this really matters, none of these actors are truly "the boss"
consider this..

minority fork, minimal node count, and disapproving devs.
thats how ETC was born.
why? because "the boss" put his foot down  

I learned a lot too during the ETH/ETC split about the dynamics of consensus.  It was a fascinating experience. Maybe bitcoin people didn't follow this drama very closely and didn't learn as much about how proof of work consensus networks really work.

[Killerpotleaf]

nodes!=boss

Thanks for understanding that too.  Bitcoin not being a "proof of node" coin, nodes aren't the boss, like you say.

if there is a real disagreement about what is the valid chain the nodes will do NOTHING to solve the disagreement.
coinbase will run 2 F'ing nodes, we will take the disagreement to the markets where everyone can participate.
 
hashrate, node count, dev approval
none of this really matters, none of these actors are truly "the boss"
consider this..

minority fork, minimal node count, and disapproving devs.
thats how ETC was born.
why? because "the boss" put his foot down  

I learned a lot too during the ETH/ETC split about the dynamics of consensus.  It was a fascinating experience. Maybe bitcoin people didn't follow this drama very closely and didn't learn as much about how proof of work consensus networks really work.

hashing power is only a signpost, a best guess, as to what the consensus really is.

ETC failed to gain majority hash rate, because it failed to gain majority market share, not the other way around....

[jbreher]

Again, the amount of non-mining nodes is essentially immaterial - apart for their owners, who use it to verify for themselves the chain they want to use (in as much as one is available by miners), and do not want to depend on unverified third-party information.

Thank you. I have been trying to make this point for ages, always falling on deaf ears. It is nice to know that at least someone else gets it.

[dinofelis]

hashing power is only a signpost, a best guess, as to what the consensus really is.

I said this somewhere else, but defining the word "consensus" without having it referring to a genuine phenomenon, is a useless exercise.  Consensus is a phenomenon.  Not something you can define as "what should be" or "the will of the people" or any other abstract definition, devoid of relationship to reality.

Consensus is the observable phenomenon that a lot of different people, outside of any hierarchical constraint, use the same rule set to come to the same data set.  In the case of a crypto currency, this is even more amazing in the sense that the rule set, and the data set, are not what is the most profitable for each of the participants.  But nevertheless, the *phenomenon* of people settling to the same protocol, and the same block chain, is the "consensus" phenomenon.  It has two aspects.  You could say that it has some "ergodicity property".  The consensus phenomenon applies just as well to the "different participants at a given time", as "over time".  The phenomenon over time is called "immutability". 

ETC failed to gain majority hash rate, because it failed to gain majority market share, not the other way around....

I don't deny this.  But now, you cannot talk any more about "majority", because ETC and ETH are different currencies, different protocols, different block chains and different users.   Whether the market share of ETC is bigger or smaller than ETH does not matter any more than whether ETH market share is bigger or smaller than bitcoin's or litecoin's.  They are different crypto currencies, with different consensus, different protocol, different block chain.

Mining always adjusts, in the end, to profitability.  That is true after a hard fork from a single currency, but it is true also between totally different currencies (at least, if the mining is compatible with the investment in hardware).  Mining hash rate is normally proportional to (block reward per unit of time) * (market price of coin) / difficulty cost price, over different currencies with compatible mining in the short time, and over all crypto currencies in the long term (after mining hardware can be written off).

[dinofelis]

Thank you. I have been trying to make this point for ages, always falling on deaf ears. It is nice to know that at least someone else gets it.

It took me some while to understand that too.  But once you see it, it is quite obvious in fact.   I guess people are mentally locked in on this dogma, because they have been making decisions based upon it, which would bring too much doubt and regret if they allowed themselves to understand this.

It blinds them to two aspects of bitcoin: the fact that true centralization is mining pool centralization (the deciders of the block chain building), and that this centralization is already well advanced ; and the fact that bitcoin is going to lose its status as a currency to become a reserve currency because of an erroneous argument over the importance of non-mining nodes and the cost of disk space versus the emerging fee market and the economies of scale that proof of work induces.  

I think it is too late now to change this.  Block size now being an economic parameter determining fee market, the consensus mechanism will most probably make that this cannot be changed any more, especially because the miners are the ones that are on the receiving side of the fees.  It could still be changed, if mining centralization is sufficiently advanced, but I don't think that that is the case for the moment, to come to an oligarch consensus without sufficient dissidents.

As to the fact that "important bitcoin people" could fail to understand this aspect, there are only two conclusions: they understand much less about the dynamics of the system than one would expect them to have ; or they have a good reason to pretend not to understand it.

"if your income depends on you not understanding something, chances for you to understand it are low"

[AngryDwarf]

seems dinofelis is on a scripted mission

objective try to brainwash sheep into thinking nodes are not important.
-snip-

On this rare occasion, I definitely agree with you. Their rhetoric is quite obvious at this point.

Thank you both for reminding me about the importance of nodes. I almost swallowed the logic.

This is remarkable as a brainwashing, isn't it.  A long, detailed explanation is swiped away with a single reminder of the Dogma without the slightest bit of logic.  Learn to think for yourself!

Yes. I am a fallible human being. Fortunately I am listening to statements from a variety of human beings and my bitcoin knowledge has improved dramatically recently. If someone successfully points out my misunderstandings, I adjust my thinking. If someone says I am stupid I might have to look it up to see why he thinks I am being stupid because they have provided no information. People making well reasoned arguments are great discussion and knowledge contributors, but they still need to be examined to see if they are ulterior motive driven.

So lets say 100% of miners have good connections with themselves (not relying on incompatible node relay), and start producing bigger blocks. The other nodes are now unsynced. Nodes (which included exchanges) will now have to upgrade. Bitcoin has successfully forked. The old fork is essentially dead, unless someone thinks their CPU's/GPU's/USB asics can move it on to the next difficulty adjustment.

I probably need to thing more about the situation involved where there is a split in mining power. Here, user nodes could have a say in the outcome of what is considered bitcoin, and what is considered bitcoin 2.

[Lauda]

So lets say 100% of miners have good connections with themselves (not relying on incompatible node relay), and start producing bigger blocks. The other nodes are now unsynced. Nodes (which included exchanges) will now have to upgrade. Bitcoin has successfully forked. The old fork is essentially dead, unless someone thinks their CPU's/GPU's/USB asics can move it on to the next difficulty adjustment.

I probably need to thing more about the situation involved where there is a split in mining power. Here, user nodes could have a say in the outcome of what is considered bitcoin, and what is considered bitcoin 2.

Nope. In this scenario, the miners would have created a worthless altcoin. This would be seen a malicious act, and an emergency POW change HF would be deployed. Miners would have millions worth of useless equipment.
Even mister franky knows the importance of consensus. Miners deciding things on their own != consensus.

[AngryDwarf]

So lets say 100% of miners have good connections with themselves (not relying on incompatible node relay), and start producing bigger blocks. The other nodes are now unsynced. Nodes (which included exchanges) will now have to upgrade. Bitcoin has successfully forked. The old fork is essentially dead, unless someone thinks their CPU's/GPU's/USB asics can move it on to the next difficulty adjustment.

I probably need to thing more about the situation involved where there is a split in mining power. Here, user nodes could have a say in the outcome of what is considered bitcoin, and what is considered bitcoin 2.

Nope. In this scenario, the miners would have created a worthless altcoin. This would be seen a malicious act, and an emergency POW change HF would be deployed. Miners would have millions worth of useless equipment.
Even mister franky knows the importance of consensus. Miners deciding things on their own != consensus.

But is it not the case that it would only be a worthless alt coin if the exchanges do not upgrade their node to the same protocol. At this point exchanges would be trading worthless IOU's, since nobody can send them UTXO's, and they can't withdraw there coins. The old block chain has no hash rate in the case where 100% of miners are creating bigger blocks.

The emergency POW hard fork you talk about would have to be a new CPU mining algorithm with reset difficulty.

Thoughts?

[Lauda]

But is it not the case that it would only be a worthless alt coin if the exchanges do not upgrade their node to the same protocol. At this point exchanges would be trading worthless IOU's, since nobody can send them UTXO's, and they can't withdraw there coins. The old block chain has no hash rate in the case where 100% of miners are creating bigger blocks.

No, it is the exact opposite. The ecosystem would definitely be in a state of chaos until the HF is deployed, but the miner's chain would be the worthless one. They can move their coins around sure, but since nobody accepts them they are effectively worthless.

The emergency POW hard fork you talk about would have to be a new CPU mining algorithm with reset difficulty.

Thoughts?

It is likely that there is already a emergency POW change HF ready for deployment (if needed).

[AngryDwarf]

It is likely that there is already a emergency POW change HF ready for deployment (if needed).

So why are planned hard forks considered dangerous, but emergency hard forks are OK?

[Lauda]

It is likely that there is already a emergency POW change HF ready for deployment (if needed).

So why are planned hard forks considered dangerous, but emergency hard forks are OK?

The former has a chance of splitting the network if done without consensus. The latter is only a measure that is supposed to *save* the network in extreme situations (e.g. an attack as described). Don't fall for this rhetoric that non-mining nodes have zero importance.
Keep in mind that various (both state and corporate) sponsored actors have long infiltrated all Bitcoin communities for nefarious purposes.

[Xester]

It is likely that there is already a emergency POW change HF ready for deployment (if needed).

So why are planned hard forks considered dangerous, but emergency hard forks are OK?

It maybe emergency hard forks and hard forks they all are the same. The same system, the same protocol and so what is the difference between the two there is nothing really. The difference is only is the time of application, the first one is on a regular and normal basis and the other one would only be used during emergency cases or as last resort. But if it is really necessary for hard forks to come in and settle bitcoin problems and issues then that is no problem with me.

[dinofelis]

People making well reasoned arguments are great discussion and knowledge contributors, but they still need to be examined to see if they are ulterior motive driven.

Normally, a logical argument stands or falls by itself, and has no bearing to its author.  That said, I have no motive.  I'm not involved in crypto, apart from studying it.  I discuss crypto essentially to improve my own understanding of it, which is my only motive.  

A mathematical proof can be checked by itself, just as a cryptographic proof.  In the same way, a logical argument, even though not watertight, is of the same nature.  The arguments I'm putting forward are exactly those that convince ME of what I'm saying.  If you can punch a hole in it, you might convince ME that I'm wrong.  I would then be grateful.

So lets say 100% of miners have good connections with themselves (not relying on incompatible node relay), and start producing bigger blocks. The other nodes are now unsynced. Nodes (which included exchanges) will now have to upgrade. Bitcoin has successfully forked. The old fork is essentially dead, unless someone thinks their CPU's/GPU's/USB asics can move it on to the next difficulty adjustment.

Yes.  I think that is logical, no ?  If you are waiting for blocks that are not mined, your node simply stops.  And if you try to mine them yourself, you *become a miner*, and you've made a new coin.

I probably need to thing more about the situation involved where there is a split in mining power. Here, user nodes could have a say in the outcome of what is considered bitcoin, and what is considered bitcoin 2.

I've been following the ETC/ETH split as it unrolled, because it was an eye-opener for me.  It was a fascinating time to follow.  I don't know if you "were there".  I had bought 5 ETH to play with a month before or so, and then found myself being owner of ETC and ETH.

When there are TWO coins, that is a full hard fork, the end result is determined by the MARKET.  If the market makes an obvious choice for one or the other, one might die ; but ETC survived on less than 10% of mining power and market cap.   This is probably why people talk of 95% (hopeful) consensus before forking if you do not want 2 prongs.  

That said, bitcoin is nastier in this respect than ethereum, because ethereum, like most more modern alt coins, have continuously adjustable difficulty ; while bitcoin has these 14 days which can be very, very long if your hash rate available is lower.  So if a hard fork keeps this aspect of bitcoin (a hard fork can change ANYTHING, so just as well the difficulty adjustment), and you are left with only 10% of the hash rate, that branch will have a hard time surviving, with a block only every 100 minutes on average, and 5 months for the next difficulty adjustment.  So most probably, bitcoin has a build-in forking protection unless the forkers adapt this.

[dinofelis]

No, it is the exact opposite. The ecosystem would definitely be in a state of chaos until the HF is deployed, but the miner's chain would be the worthless one. They can move their coins around sure, but since nobody accepts them they are effectively worthless.

Why do you think an exchange would forego all the gains to be made in exchanging these coins ?  If I were the CEO of an exchange, I would HURRY LIKE CRAZY to be the first exchange to line up both coins.  Because there will be a massive trading back and fro between them, and each time, I take a trading fee.  They have seen the example with ETC/ETH.

Why are you denying what has already happened elsewhere ?

[dinofelis]

Nope. In this scenario, the miners would have created a worthless altcoin. This would be seen a malicious act, and an emergency POW change HF would be deployed. Miners would have millions worth of useless equipment.
Even mister franky knows the importance of consensus. Miners deciding things on their own != consensus.

That's exactly what the ethereum foundation thought.

[Carlton Banks]

Even mister franky knows the importance of consensus. Miners deciding things on their own != consensus.

If only Franky could use the word so that it actually means consensus, instead of constantly repeating-repeating-repeating what he wishes it means

(Franky tells us 50x times daily that consensus is where everyone disagrees on something   )

[jbreher]

Don't fall for this rhetoric that non-mining nodes have zero importance.

It is not that non-mining nodes have zero importance. Indeed, they are important in that they signal the preferences of their users. Non-mining nodes have essentially zero power.

[jonald_fyookball]

No, it is the exact opposite. The ecosystem would definitely be in a state of chaos until the HF is deployed, but the miner's chain would be the worthless one. They can move their coins around sure, but since nobody accepts them they are effectively worthless.

Why do you think an exchange would forego all the gains to be made in exchanging these coins ?  If I were the CEO of an exchange, I would HURRY LIKE CRAZY to be the first exchange to line up both coins.  Because there will be a massive trading back and fro between them, and each time, I take a trading fee.  They have seen the example with ETC/ETH.

Why are you denying what has already happened elsewhere ?

well...yeah.

exchanges will list the lowliest of the shitcoins and it costs them nothing.  Obviously they would list both coins in a bitcoin split.

[dinofelis]

Don't fall for this rhetoric that non-mining nodes have zero importance.

It is not that non-mining nodes have zero importance. Indeed, they are important in that they signal the preferences of their users. Non-mining nodes have essentially zero power.

Amen.  That said, it is a very non-significative voting, it is rather like a polling that can be highly biased.  At least, ethereum tried to set up a kind of proof-of-stake VOTE to find out what would happen.  When they were near 90%-10% they thought that they could go ahead.

The nodes "polling" can be influenced by 1) people just automatically updating  2) people setting up a lot of Sybil nodes to influence the outcome  3) people having nodes not necessarily those who will weight in on the market.  I have a node, soon 2, I don't trade, I only do "bitcoin as a currency" if I want to buy something (less and less the case).

[franky1]

hashing power is only a signpost, a best guess, as to what the consensus really is.

I said this somewhere else, but defining the word "consensus" without having it referring to a genuine phenomenon, is a useless exercise.  Consensus is a phenomenon.  Not something you can define as "what should be" or "the will of the people" or any other abstract definition, devoid of relationship to reality.

bitcoins consensus, is that of the nodes first pools second.

CORE (not pools, not BU not some random guy,, but core) BYPASSED bitcoins built in consensus. and literally handed the vote to only pools.

this does not mean pools(hashing power) have the ultimate vote on bitcoin...
just the ultimate vote on pushing segwit into taking over bitcoin

segwit is a total rewrite that then makes it even easier to bypass the real bitcoin consensus by making it even easier to keep giving pools the vote (by going soft)

[dinofelis]

bitcoins consensus, is that of the nodes first pools second.

Then why is there "proof of work" ?
And why is nobody Sybil-attacking the node count ?

If "nodes are the boss" and it is damn easy to outnumber the existing nodes with a tiny fraction of the amount of money it takes to be a miner making a block, why are all these stupid Chinese mining, and are they not setting up whole datacenters of millions of nodes ?

Why do you even think that Satoshi used proof of work ?

Forget consensus as the flower-power-like concept of "what the loving, honest community really wants and desires" or some other thing.  Consensus is the phenomenon that people use the same protocol and the same chain amongst themselves, and over time (immutability).

[franky1]

bitcoins consensus, is that of the nodes first pools second.

Then why is there "proof of work" ?
And why is nobody Sybil-attacking the node count ?

If "nodes are the boss" and it is damn easy to outnumber the existing nodes with a tiny fraction of the amount of money it takes to be a miner making a block, why are all these stupid Chinese mining, and are they not setting up whole datacenters of millions of nodes ?

Why do you even think that Satoshi used proof of work ?

because people can spot a sybil attack and actively ban nodes running on things like amazon servers.
there have been attempts in the past. and people spot them.

as for PoW.
node=boss
pools=secretary

if pools do not show good proof of their work, and collated data that comply to nodes rules, nodes reject it.
and guess what. pools "work" does get rejected quite often
https://blockchain.info/orphaned-blocks

a pool could have 99% of the hashrate.. but if it only had 1% of node count. does not mean the pool changes the nodes rules. it just means SUPER HIGH clusterf*ck of orphans.

this is why 50% of pools are undecided about certain bitcoin plans. because they are unofficially waiting to see what nodes support, to reduce orphan risks.

[Lauda]

Why do you think an exchange would forego all the gains to be made in exchanging these coins ?  If I were the CEO of an exchange, I would HURRY LIKE CRAZY to be the first exchange to line up both coins.  Because there will be a massive trading back and fro between them, and each time, I take a trading fee.  They have seen the example with ETC/ETH.

Why are you denying what has already happened elsewhere ?

Anyone with any kind of morals is not going to list it on regulated exchanges such as Bitstamp or alternatively, they're going to list it as an altcoin called BTU.

-snip-
(Franky tells us 50x times daily that consensus is where everyone disagrees on something    )

Wait, didn't someone else start indirectly spreading this recently as well?

The nodes "polling" can be influenced by 1) people just automatically updating

There is no automatic updating.

2) people setting up a lot of Sybil nodes to influence the outcome 

Mitigated by the existence of older nodes.

3) people having nodes not necessarily those who will weight in on the market.  I have a node, soon 2, I don't trade, I only do "bitcoin as a currency" if I want to buy something (less and less the case).

Relevance?

because people can spot a sybil attack and actively ban nodes running on things like amazon servers.
there have been attempts in the past. and people spot them.

Correct. Even you acknowledge the role that non-mining nodes play.

[Carlton Banks]

-snip-
(Franky tells us 50x times daily that consensus is where everyone disagrees on something    )

Wait, didn't someone else start indirectly spreading this recently as well?

Lauda, what is it that you think you're saying to me, hmmmmmmmmm?


You're going a bit weird, you've accepted in the past the fact that on-chain scaling is not possible, it's the same scale with bigger components, hence why it breaks down the further the network heads in that direction

Are you now really pretending that you no longer accept that blocksize increases are a non-solution, and that 12 MB blocks in a few years is a sensible way forward? Are you using the same schoolyard logically subversive tactics as Frankie and jonald, and impugning those who won't get on board?

[Lauda]

Wait, didn't someone else start indirectly spreading this recently as well?

Lauda, what is it that you think you're saying to me, hmmmmmmmmm?


You're going a bit weird, you've accepted in the past the fact that on-chain scaling is not possible, it's the same scale with bigger components, hence why it breaks down the further the network heads in that direction

Are you now really pretending that you no longer accept that blocksize increases are a non-solution, and that 12 MB blocks in a few years is a sensible way forward? Are you using the same schoolyard logically subversive tactics as Frankie and jonald, and impugning those who won't get on board?

I was merely referring to the latest staments by dinofelis & co. Sigh.

[Carlton Banks]

Ambiguity is not your friend when it comes to these things, look before you leap

[dinofelis]

There is no automatic updating.

I'm sorry, but my ubuntu node updated automatically the bitcoin wallet.

Mitigated by the existence of older nodes.

Ah, now it isn't proof by node, but proof by node-age.

3) people having nodes not necessarily those who will weight in on the market.  I have a node, soon 2, I don't trade, I only do "bitcoin as a currency" if I want to buy something (less and less the case).

Relevance?

If nodes "vote", my vote, that doesn't mean anything, counts.

because people can spot a sybil attack and actively ban nodes running on things like amazon servers.
there have been attempts in the past. and people spot them.

Correct. Even you acknowledge the role that non-mining nodes play.

So what stops a small minority of nodes to adhere to another protocol, and have their version of the coin live ?  In what way does any majority of non-agreeing nodes stop them from doing their thing ?

Or vice versa, what stops a small minority from sticking to the old protocol, and keep their original chain live ?  In what way does any majority of non-agreeing nodes stop them from doing their thing ?

In other words, what do OTHER nodes mean for a user (with his node) who agrees with a set of miners, mining a chain according to their protocol ?  What does it mean for him, that most other nodes do not agree, nor with him, nor with the miners ?  Nothing.

[dinofelis]

Why do you think an exchange would forego all the gains to be made in exchanging these coins ?  If I were the CEO of an exchange, I would HURRY LIKE CRAZY to be the first exchange to line up both coins.  Because there will be a massive trading back and fro between them, and each time, I take a trading fee.  They have seen the example with ETC/ETH.

Why are you denying what has already happened elsewhere ?

Anyone with any kind of morals is not going to list it on regulated exchanges such as Bitstamp or alternatively, they're going to list it as an altcoin called BTU.

Yes.  Now suppose that it gets 80% of the market cap.  Because that is what was the case with ethereum: the FORKED protocol (ETH) got 90% of the market cap while the original chain remained with 10% (ETC).

What's the problem ?

Branding ?  The name "bitcoin" ?  What coin are they going to call "bitcoin": the one with 90% market cap, or the one with 10% market cap ?

If there is ever a "morality", they would change BOTH names: bitcoin-core and bitcoin-U or something.

But I don't think it will happen, until the "branding" of bitcoin is eroded, that is, when bitcoin will have lost its first mover advantage.

[dinofelis]

Are you now really pretending that you no longer accept that blocksize increases are a non-solution, and that 12 MB blocks in a few years is a sensible way forward? Are you using the same schoolyard logically subversive tactics as Frankie and jonald, and impugning those who won't get on board?

You are perfectly right that block chain tech doesn't scale well.  However, there is a difference between putting in an artificial scarcity parameter, and having a real market determine when the resource cost of the scaling needs to be compensated by fees.

You do not agree, but it is a very simple fact that non-mining nodes have nothing to do with the decentralisation of bitcoin.  The only thing that counts is that respect is the decentralisation of proof of work deciders (mining pools), which is at this moment an oligarchy.  So bitcoin is on the brink of being centralized in any case, and the "node network" has absolutely no power to counter that, no matter how many blindspots you have there.  

If bitcoin had a free block size, or an automatically adapting block size, it would be able to cope with adoption up to the point of technical limits, essentially given by network capacity between mining pools (we really, really don't care about nodes) and their server capacity towards user wallets.  The loon guy wanting to check the block chain for himself can buy enough storage to verify the Peta-byte size block chain if he wants to.  But that doesn't matter.  To give you an idea, I buy now 1TB disks for less money than I bought 1 GB disks in the 1990-ies.  So PB size storage is probably not going to be a problem 20 years from now.  My internet link went up also by more than a factor 1000.  So downloading a PB block size during a week is going to be just as fine as downloading a TB size block chain right now.  So the scalability is limited by technology, but technology is improving. 

But now that bitcoin has a protocol built-in block size of 1MB, it is for ever limited to 2-3 transactions a second, which means that bitcoin can only be a reserve currency.

Maybe a lightning network by banks will be built on top of it. But it will be like normal banking, where normal people will have a bank account, and the bank will use bitcoin to settle with other banks.  Those banks are nothing else but lightning hubs, using bitcoin as a reserve currency (and going for fractional reserve banking, IOU, and all that, like normal banking).

But what is sure, is that bitcoin will not be used any more directly by normal users for normal transactions, as a currency.  That epoch is closing with the 1 MB limit.

[Carlton Banks]

You are perfectly right that block chain tech doesn't scale well.  However, there is a difference between putting in an artificial scarcity parameter, and having a real market determine when the resource cost of the scaling needs to be compensated by fees.

The market already chooses, just without an algorithm governing the so-called "choice"


All the algorithmic re-sizing proposals come with a cap anyway. Hence, they're waste of time; it's far easier just to use the cap and allow actual market driven dynamics choose how much of that space to fill, algorithmic resizing simply creates soft limits to stymie market dynamics from actually determining the blocksize


Can you reply without making it inpenetrably overlong, please

[AngryDwarf]

But now that bitcoin has a protocol built-in block size of 1MB, it is for ever limited to 2-3 transactions a second, which means that bitcoin can only be a reserve currency.

And that capacity is not enough to compete with the SWIFT settlement network. Not to mention users want timely settlement so that they can go home and see their kids before they go to bed.

GBP was once the reserve currency. Now it is USD. BTC may now be the reserve currency in the crypto world, but that could change. I doubt that it could ever surpass the USD as a reserve currency.

[dinofelis]

I was merely referring to the latest staments by dinofelis & co. Sigh.

Look, I present arguments.  You present insinuations, intention trials and so on, but apart from adhering to the group think dictated by some high priests, visibly there's not much of an argument.

My claims are these:
- consensus is best defined as the (a priori remarkable) phenomenon that many independent, non-hierarchically related entities use the same protocol, and use the same data set ; and the related property that this rule set and data set doesn't change over time: immutability.

- that this consensus and immutability phenomenon comes about by the fact that there are so many antagonists that it is not possible to find any agreement over any change that would bring advantage to some, and disadvantage to others.  So essentially, it is the fact that many antagonists disagree over change, that change doesn't happen, and that immutability occurs.  This does not apply to economically neutral aspects of the protocol where nobody has any advantage or disadvantage, but only applies to "economic" aspects.

- that in a proof of work consensus system, those delivering proof of work (the miners) are the "servers of block chain and of protocol", and the users are the "clients of block chain and protocol", who provide transaction data to the servers (miners) and decide to "vote in the market" over the token (crypto currency) at hand.  Important clients in this respect are exchanges.

- that the exact way in which the servers (miners) communicate their block chain to the users, and the exact way in which the users communicate their transactions to the miners, doesn't really matter as long as there is good network connectivity, and that hence the distributed network of nodes that makes these miners communicate their block chain to the users, and the users their transactions to the miners, is of very secondary importance.

My illustrations are:

- the ETC/ETH split

- the fact that if nodes had power, then a sybil attack on the number of nodes would be extremely easy to exercise.

[dinofelis]

But now that bitcoin has a protocol built-in block size of 1MB, it is for ever limited to 2-3 transactions a second, which means that bitcoin can only be a reserve currency.

And that capacity is not enough to compete with the SWIFT settlement network. Not to mention users want timely settlement so that they can go home and see their kids before they go to bed.

When I talk about institutional players using bitcoin as a reserve currency, I don't mean traditional banks necessarily.  I mean, things like exchanges, online casinos, and many new non-regulated financial speculation agents.  There is no reason why the regulated financial world would use bitcoin.  It is mostly in those cases where non-regulated, badly regulated situations occur where a reserve currency can be used as a collateral (and not legal procedures, central banks and so on) that bitcoin has an advantage.

GBP was once the reserve currency. Now it is USD. BTC may now be the reserve currency in the crypto world, but that could change. I doubt that it could ever surpass the USD as a reserve currency.

I agree with you.  But it will be a reserve currency for those (big) things where regulation is too difficult, impossible etc... I'm not saying that regular banks might not get involved.  But it will not be their main business.  But you could think of "banking in lawless environments, in war environments etc...".  Banking in, say, Zimbabwe is maybe easier done with bitcoin as a reserve currency, than with whatever doubtful legal system over there.  So maybe a big bank will not trust to open offices using Zimbabwe's legal system, and prefers using bitcoin as a reserve currency.  But between a bank in London and one in New York, they most probably won't use bitcoin (unless they want to do something undercover).

[cellard]

If there was a real way to have a flexible block size I would support it, but the reality of things here is, nobody can trust BU, it's going to be a disaster, it just doesn't work.

The conservative approach of the Core devs is what's making the base of bitcoin solid, BU devs will guarantee my wealth is is not there in the long term because they will fuck up in the process.

[dinofelis]

If there was a real way to have a flexible block size I would support it, but the reality of things here is, nobody can trust BU, it's going to be a disaster, it just doesn't work.

I don't know the details of BU.  I don't think BU is meant to be used, just to block off segwit.  I think nothing will happen, if my understanding of things is correct: the 1MB blocks are frozen in, until bitcoin is centralized enough for a central authority to decide otherwise (say, a cartel of miners).

[dinofelis]

Can you reply without making it inpenetrably overlong, please

One should make things as simple as possible, but not simpler (A. Einstein).

If the reader's attention span is limited, then probably the arguments are too complicated for the reader too.

[AngryDwarf]

If there was a real way to have a flexible block size I would support it, but the reality of things here is, nobody can trust BU, it's going to be a disaster, it just doesn't work.

The conservative approach of the Core devs is what's making the base of bitcoin solid, BU devs will guarantee my wealth is is not there in the long term because they will fuck up in the process.

Once again, this is similar to calling linux developers idiots because most people use Windows.

BU is a fork of bitcoin core 0.12.x code, as an analogy, it shares the same kernel. If BU was to gain acceptance, it is likely the case that many knowledgeable and intelligent people would get involved.

Also you have to consider the attitude that some people think about old UTXO's, if you are concerned about the security of your wealth.

And there is nothing conservative about segwit. It is a massive code change, and a radical change to the network topology of bitcoin.

[Carlton Banks]

And there is nothing conservative about segwit. It is a massive code change, and a radical change to the network topology of bitcoin.

...the majority of which isn't code in the software, but external testing code that's not a part of Bitcoin itself


Are you suggesting that diligent testing code is somehow irresponsible? Your presentation of the facts is selective, and irresponsible

[pereira4]

Here's further exposing of Gavin in pre-CIA times, talking about the evils that he is now promoting, and pointing out how merchants and nodes control bitcoin, not Jihan Wu's monopoly:

I very much doubt that any one entity will ever have 50% of the computational power. The botnet operators will bow to the whims of the community because it's the community that ultimately gives bitcoins value. What good is a giant load of bitcoins if you don't have anyone willing to give you something in exchange for them?

Eventually the largest merchants and money exchangers will control what is "standard" bitcoin.

Take the "50-coiners" scenario, and imagine that they manage to get 75% of the CPU power on their side.

But imagine that the biggest merchants and money exchangers are more conservative, and are in the 25% minority.  I think they will be-- I don't think they'll be the ones in the business of generating coins (they'll be busy selling products or doing the exchange thing).

What happens?

Well, the block chain splits.  Transactions using coins minted before the split will get added to both block chains, and accepted by everybody.

Transactions involving "50-coins" (generated after the split) will be accepted on the 50-coin chain, rejected on the 25-coin chain.  And vice-versa.

"50-coiners" would quickly find out that they couldn't get rid of their newly minted money because who wants bitcoins that are rejected by the biggest money exchangers or merchants?

If the big merchants and money exchangers disagreed, I bet you'd see Bitcoin clients that ONLY accepted pre-split coins and did no coin generation (since those transactions would be accepted by everybody).  If it was never resolved, I think the number of Bitcoins at the time of the split would become "the number of Bitcoins, period,"  because most people will not want to use money that is accepted some places and not others.

Replace "50-coiners" with BUcoiners and 25-coin with Core. There you have it.

Check the tweets here too:

https://medium.com/@WhalePanda/how-bitcoin-unlimited-btu-will-be-erased-169977ecb3bb#.8lzo1psxc

Get ready to dump BUcoin and double your BTC stack if the unfortunate event happens.

[jonald_fyookball]

many of the biggest coin exchangers and payment process already expressed support for bigger blocks so we will see
what they do if/when BU activates.