the real Bitcoin debate and why the market always wins

[jonald_fyookball]

This post really inspired me.

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/5pcpec/the_debate_is_not_should_the_blocksize_be_1mb/

Let's talk about it. 

[1714959884]

1714959884

[1714959884]

1714959884

[1714959884]

1714959884

[1714959884]

1714959884

[1714959884]

1714959884

[Oznog]

The small blockers have already failed.

If they were right, the community would not be divided or talk serious about a hard fork.

[franky1]

The small blockers have already failed.

If they were right, the community would not be divided or talk serious about a hard fork.

segwit = core(blockstream) job security of their Tier network they want. and able to slide in trojans more easily(going "soft will be easier") without node/pool votes due to use of bribes(fee discount) and blackmails(PoW algo changes) to try getting them to that point.

where as dynamics, with simple lines of code changes which many implementations (bar core hesitant group) have already got, allows diverse peers to work with consensus so that they are all on the same playing field where both node and pools have to come to an agreement else it wont change.

[thepo1m]

One thing I know is that because it is big doesn't mean is better, I think the problem with some miners is fear of the unknown. I still believe for now SegWit is the best available solution on the table

[vnvizow]

Why talk about it? It's not about what we in the crypto slums think, it's about what the big colluding Chinamen miners think. If they want 100mb block sizes, go ahead. All 99% of those who come in this forum care about is the price of their precious. So go ahead, centralize the shit out of it.

That doesn't even make sense, the nodes matter just as much as miners and even then China doesn't hold >50% of the current hashrate.

[Vaccinus]

The small blockers have already failed.

If they were right, the community would not be divided or talk serious about a hard fork.

the small blockers never said that they like small blocks man, they are saying that they don't like big block, but prefer to go another route, well in the end only miners and exchange decide, nothing a average user can do for this

Why talk about it? It's not about what we in the crypto slums think, it's about what the big colluding Chinamen miners think. If they want 100mb block sizes, go ahead. All 99% of those who come in this forum care about is the price of their precious. So go ahead, centralize the shit out of it.

That doesn't even make sense, the nodes matter just as much as miners and even then China doesn't hold >50% of the current hashrate.

no nodes doesn't matter like miners man, what you are talking about? node count nithing, only miners and exchange have a word here, because if exchange do not listen the new for miners can't sell, they are both with the same importance

[vnvizow]

Why talk about it? It's not about what we in the crypto slums think, it's about what the big colluding Chinamen miners think. If they want 100mb block sizes, go ahead. All 99% of those who come in this forum care about is the price of their precious. So go ahead, centralize the shit out of it.

That doesn't even make sense, the nodes matter just as much as miners and even then China doesn't hold >50% of the current hashrate.

no nodes doesn't matter like miners man, what you are talking about? node count nithing, only miners and exchange have a word here, because if exchange do not listen the new for miners can't sell, they are both with the same importance

Try running a coin with just miners and no nodes then. Nodes represent the community, and it's not like if exchanges disappeared no more trades would occur (member back when there were no exchanges? Did the coin die without them? exactly)

[AgentofCoin]

Why talk about it? It's not about what we in the crypto slums think, it's about what the big colluding Chinamen miners think. If they want 100mb block sizes, go ahead. All 99% of those who come in this forum care about is the price of their precious. So go ahead, centralize the shit out of it.

That doesn't even make sense, the nodes matter just as much as miners and even then China doesn't hold >50% of the current hashrate.

no nodes doesn't matter like miners man, what you are talking about? node count nithing, only miners and exchange have a word here, because if exchange do not listen the new for miners can't sell, they are both with the same importance

You are incorrect.
Good exchanges usually have their own Validator Nodes, they do not defer to Miners.

Validator Nodes maintain and enforce the protocol, not miners.
Miners build blocks based on the node enforced protocol.

Miners play by the Rules they are told to follow by the Nodes.
A forked protocol change, changes the Node Rules.


Where is all this misinfo about Nodes being worthless coming from lately? Pretty sad.
This is a fundamental Bitcoin understanding. If it wasn't true, then Miners have
absolute free will and that has not occurred in the past nor currently.

[Oznog]

The small blockers have already failed.

If they were right, the community would not be divided or talk serious about a hard fork.

the small blockers never said that they like small blocks man, they are saying that they don't like big block, but prefer to go another route, well in the end only miners and exchange decide, nothing a average user can do for this

That another route is called SegWit and has a conflict of interests in favor of small blocks.
Unlimited implementation makes SegWit unnecessary.

[Holliday]

Impossible to read. Too much propaganda. Thanks for nothing OP.

The market will obviously decide and if BU had the market they would have forked long ago. You don't need to ask when you have the economic majority backing you.

[Oznog]

Miners play by the Rules they are told to follow by the Nodes.
A forked protocol change, changes the Node Rules.

The block chain is not decided by proof-of-ip or proof-of-developers, it is decided by proof-of-work.
Therefore, the chain with more computing power will always prevail.
Therefore, the decision is of the miners and they are influenced directly to the market price.
This is the consensus of Nakamoto as I understand it.

[jonald_fyookball]

Impossible to read. Too much propaganda. Thanks for nothing OP.

The market will obviously decide and if BU had the market they would have forked long ago. You don't need to ask when you have the economic majority backing you.

Sorry you didn't like it -- I guess I was preaching to the choir here bud.

I agree, the market will decide.  You have yourself a nice day. 

[Holliday]

Impossible to read. Too much propaganda. Thanks for nothing OP.

The market will obviously decide and if BU had the market they would have forked long ago. You don't need to ask when you have the economic majority backing you.

Sorry you didn't like it -- I guess I was preaching to the choir here bud.

I agree, the market will decide.  You have yourself a nice day. 

It not that "I didn't like it". It's that whoever wrote it started throwing shit about two sentences in. If you can't make an argument without calling someone names, then you are just wasting my time.

[vnvizow]

Impossible to read. Too much propaganda. Thanks for nothing OP.

The market will obviously decide and if BU had the market they would have forked long ago. You don't need to ask when you have the economic majority backing you.

Sorry you didn't like it -- I guess I was preaching to the choir here bud.

I agree, the market will decide.  You have yourself a nice day. 

It not that "I didn't like it". It's that whoever wrote it started throwing shit about two sentences in. If you can't make an argument without calling someone names, then you are just wasting my time.

1. it's reddit (basically SFW 4chan) 2. IMO it's reflective of the atmosphere in the community right now...can't get your point across unless you're capslocking everything with swears and names

[AgentofCoin]

Miners play by the Rules they are told to follow by the Nodes.
A forked protocol change, changes the Node Rules.

The block chain is not decided by proof-of-ip or proof-of-developers, it is decided by proof-of-work.
Therefore, the chain with more computing power will always prevail.
Therefore, the decision is of the miners and they are influenced directly to the market price.
This is the consensus of Nakamoto as I understand it.

What you just stated is incorrect in response to my statement.

You are talking about signaling for proposed protocol changes and then
after that change, how that "new protocol" chain is built upon.

What you have failed to address, which is my statement, is that in order for
miners to get a new protocol change, they need a node network that supports
their protocol change. Miners without a decentralized validator node network is
not a blockchain nor a cryptocurrency. What you described is like a OneCoin scam.

Nakamoto Consensus as it was envisioned in the Whitepaper stopped being true
when ASICs forced the separation between Mining and Validating. Today, Miners
if they wanted to, do not need to validate to mine. The Validator Node network
currently holds them to some semi-validation. Without them, miners can build
invalid blocks without recourse.

Nakamoto Consensus was based on 1 CPU = 1 Vote. When 1 CPU = 1 Vote stopped
being applicable, Nakamoto Consensus either ended, or morphed into what I am
saying, depending on your viewpoint. Today, we call it simply "Consensus" (since
"Nakamoto Consensus" essentially failed).

[Idrisu]

Impossible to read. Too much propaganda. Thanks for nothing OP.

The market will obviously decide and if BU had the market they would have forked long ago. You don't need to ask when you have the economic majority backing you.

The current upward trend is a proves market will always wins. Btu which try to bring disharmony to bitcoin community and centralized bitcoin is enemy of this community. What we the traders want is increase in the value of bitcoin and I am praying for bitcoin to remains decentralized.

[franky1]

What you just stated is incorrect in response to my statement.

You are talking about signaling for proposed protocol changes and then
after that change, how that "new protocol" chain is built upon.

What you have failed to address, which is my statement, is that in order for
miners to get a new protocol change, they need a node network that supports
their protocol change. Miners without a decentralized validator node network is
not a blockchain nor a cryptocurrency. What you described is like a OneCoin scam.

Nakamoto Consensus as it was envisioned in the Whitepaper stopped being true
when ASICs forced the separation between Mining and Validating. Today, Miners
if they wanted to, do not need to validate to mine. The Validator Node network
currently holds them to some semi-validation. Without them, miners can build
invalid blocks without recourse.

Nakamoto Consensus was based on 1 CPU = 1 Vote. When 1 CPU = 1 Vote stopped
being applicable, Nakamoto Consensus either ended, or morphed into what I am
saying, depending on your viewpoint. Today, we call it simply "Consensus" (since
"Nakamoto Consensus" essentially failed).

node consensus still exists.

nodes can still orphan blocks.
this is why core INTENTIONALLY decided to avoid node consensus.

do not confuse CORES intentions of giving only pools the vote. with how the 3 dimensional symbiotic secure of consensus works.

nodes can still block and ban off anything segwit if they wanted to.
this is why segwit  has their segwit pstream tier network to strip blocks to 'fake it' to appear as a block that follows old rules to fake it passed nodes. but nodes can ip ban segwit filter nodes if they so wish to.

much like segwit can ban and orphan non segwit nodes and blocks.

[vnvizow]

What you just stated is incorrect in response to my statement.

You are talking about signaling for proposed protocol changes and then
after that change, how that "new protocol" chain is built upon.

What you have failed to address, which is my statement, is that in order for
miners to get a new protocol change, they need a node network that supports
their protocol change. Miners without a decentralized validator node network is
not a blockchain nor a cryptocurrency. What you described is like a OneCoin scam.

Nakamoto Consensus as it was envisioned in the Whitepaper stopped being true
when ASICs forced the separation between Mining and Validating. Today, Miners
if they wanted to, do not need to validate to mine. The Validator Node network
currently holds them to some semi-validation. Without them, miners can build
invalid blocks without recourse.

Nakamoto Consensus was based on 1 CPU = 1 Vote. When 1 CPU = 1 Vote stopped
being applicable, Nakamoto Consensus either ended, or morphed into what I am
saying, depending on your viewpoint. Today, we call it simply "Consensus" (since
"Nakamoto Consensus" essentially failed).

node consensus still exists.

nodes can still orphan blocks.
this is why core INTENTIONALLY decided to avoid node consensus.

do not confuse CORES intentions of giving only pools the vote. with how the 3 dimensional symbiotic secure of consensus works.

nodes can still block and ban off anything segwit if they wanted to.
this is why segwit  has their segwit pstream tier network to strip blocks to 'fake it' to appear as a block that follows old rules to fake it passed nodes. but nodes can ip ban segwit filter nodes if they so wish to.

much like segwit can ban and orphan non segwit nodes and blocks.

Wait, is that why the percentage for segwit acceptance vary so much? I'm going to assume BU has the same issue

[Jacce]

To me it seems more like a centralized core dev team vs a bunch of chinese miner oligarchs.

In the end, though, I think you are right that the market always wins. That doesn't really equate to whoever has the most mining power, though, but rather where the money of the users is. If more (rich) people wants to buy Core bitcoins that Unlimited bitcoins, then I would say Core wins (or vice versa).

[Oznog]

Nakamoto Consensus was based on 1 CPU = 1 Vote. When 1 CPU = 1 Vote stopped
being applicable, Nakamoto Consensus either ended, or morphed into what I am
saying, depending on your viewpoint. Today, we call it simply "Consensus" (since
"Nakamoto Consensus" essentially failed).

In my opinion it is over-understood that GPU, ASIC and also future quantum computing is understood as "CPU" in this context.

If as you say the nodes has weight, that weight is about only 40$/m per node.
Why do you think that the deployment of nodes is a big problem for the miners?