BUgcoin strikes back

[muyuu]

I think the decision to ignore mining in the reference client, was the wrong one.

This, I wholeheartedly agree with. Two years ago core devs were saying mining had almost nothing to do with the core implementation which was a very shortsighted view. The lack of emphasis on the delicate interplay between mining and the reference implementation of the bitcoin network protocol and the block chain was a major setback. Of course one could ask why I didn't get involved then since I was busy hacking on mining code and the answer is a simple one: I don't have any faith in my c++ coding skills so it would have been presumptuous of me to try and hack on bitcoin core.

You know what?

That's the level of the argument we should be having about the big-blocks vs multi-layer debate. The problem is that bigblockers took it to the audience and now it's exclusively politics and we have a complete shitshow of a debate with people who have no idea what they are talking about.

If it was the level set by people like dinofelis who actually have very respectable points, then this would be MUCH better. The problem is that the bigblocker side has degenerated to the point their position is untenable. I think this didn't start completely by a problem of their own, but from a separate problem which is that of software development governance. But the reality is that every client they come with is worse than the previous one and we cannot abstract the underlying technical debate from the fact that their current dev base is completely incompetent as 95%+ of devs with experience in this field (which is a HARD field) "roughly" agree with the Core Roadmap or are willing to make concessions to work with them (me included, although I stay very anonymous in dev because this could cost me my job in finance).

So I feel we don't have a way out that doesn't end up in some sort of radicalisation and infighting. They will resort to aggression, losing the argument on that alone even though they do have fair points like those exposed by dinofelis (I just disagree in his conclusions and in some key assumptions, but I actually agree with a lot of his take).

I'm seriously worried about this. If Bitcoin depends on sorting the problem of "perfect agreement in software development" then we are IN THE SHIT because that is never going to happen.

[1713988294]

1713988294

[1713988294]

1713988294

[1713988294]

1713988294

[1713988294]

1713988294

[jonald_fyookball]

I think the decision to ignore mining in the reference client, was the wrong one.

This, I wholeheartedly agree with. Two years ago core devs were saying mining had almost nothing to do with the core implementation which was a very shortsighted view. The lack of emphasis on the delicate interplay between mining and the reference implementation of the bitcoin network protocol and the block chain was a major setback. Of course one could ask why I didn't get involved then since I was busy hacking on mining code and the answer is a simple one: I don't have any faith in my c++ coding skills so it would have been presumptuous of me to try and hack on bitcoin core.

You know what?

That's the level of the argument we should be having about the big-blocks vs multi-layer debate. The problem is that bigblockers took it to the audience and now it's exclusively politics and we have a complete shitshow of a debate with people who have no idea what they are talking about.

If it was the level set by people like dinofelis who actually have very respectable points, then this would be MUCH better. The problem is that the bigblocker side has degenerated to the point their position is untenable. I think this didn't start completely by a problem of their own, but from a separate problem which is that of software development governance. But the reality is that every client they come with is worse than the previous one and we cannot abstract the underlying technical debate from the fact that their current dev base is completely incompetent as 95%+ of devs with experience in this field (which is a HARD field) "roughly" agree with the Core Roadmap or are willing to make concessions to work with them (me included, although I stay very anonymous in dev because this could cost me my job in finance).

So I feel we don't have a way out that doesn't end up in some sort of radicalisation and infighting. They will resort to aggression, losing the argument on that alone even though they do have fair points like those exposed by dinofelis (I just disagree in his conclusions and in some key assumptions, but I actually agree with a lot of his take).

I'm seriously worried about this. If Bitcoin depends on sorting the problem of "perfect agreement in software development" then we are IN THE SHIT because that is never going to happen.

Good post.  I am all for honest and open dialouge.

The whole reason I am for EC is because its very hard to get agreement and its all been around this single blocksize variable.

I am sure there are issues from 'the big blockers' (you probably see me as one of them, that's fine).

But I also see issues from the small blockers.  For example, refusal to even admit blocks were getting fuller, or censorship of
even discussing the issues...and as you said 'aggression' -- plenty of that on both sides.

I'm really trying to make a personal effort to be as cordial as I can and see where some common ground can be established.
We're all bitcoiners.

[Wind_FURY]

SegWit as proposed already will increase the size of the block and the burden on nodes very substantially.
 

Fair enough.  I guess this is where we can shake hands and agree to disagree.  Sure Segwit offers *some* on chain scaling, but too little too late for my taste.

I want to ask if the increase in block size through Segwit not enough for the present number of transactions. Is it not already a big improvement? What do you think the average block size be today if we were using Bitcoin Unlimited?

[jonald_fyookball]

SegWit as proposed already will increase the size of the block and the burden on nodes very substantially.
 

Fair enough.  I guess this is where we can shake hands and agree to disagree.  Sure Segwit offers *some* on chain scaling, but too little too late for my taste.

I want to ask if the increase in block size through Segwit not enough for the present number of transactions. Is it not already a big improvement? What do you think the average block size be today if we were using Bitcoin Unlimited?

I am not a segwit expert.  I have heard it starts at 1.7mb but I have also heard that assumes all wallets in the world are using it which probably isn't the case.

I think if we truly had 1.7 today it would be ok for the moment (assuming people that left bitcoin to start using altcoins came back) but the idea is always stay WELL ahead of the curve.

Remember that demand is affected by supply in the sense that if people experience (or even anticipate) a congested network, they will be preemptively dissuaded from using Bitcoin. 

So 1.7 or 2 might be ok for a few months but hopefully we grow far beyond that.

[dinofelis]

Advancements in either p2pool software or something similar would go a long way in starting to alleviate the problems associated with mining centralization. Unfortunately, there hasn't been enough incentive to advance these things. I think instead of removing mining from the reference client, it should have adopted and improved upon the p2pool software.

No, really, once you have a cartel of pools, which is unavoidable with a PoW type income lottery, the network topology doesn't really matter, in *reality* you have a server/client system, where the pools are the collective server of block chain because they are the principal source of the data.  The other nodes in the network are nothing else but proxy servers of this data and ultimately, the clients.

The real P2P nature of the network only made sense if a block could be mined *anywhere* on the network ; if essentially all nodes were also miners.   Then the whole network is at the same time client and server, and the P2P style network is justified.
But if you have a specialized set of nodes that *make* the data, and a *large quantity* of nodes that only *use* the data, then you get an automatic adaptation of the network topology to the reality of the data flow: server/client.

Note that *amongst* the mining pools, the P2P topology still makes sense ; this is why they most probably connect in an almost full mesh, because they don't trust one another (subcartels of selfish miners might form).  But FROM the mining pools to the non-mining nodes, the relationship is not P2P, but is client/server, and hence the optimal network topology adapts to that given.

[dinofelis]

Automatically, if nothing else is done on top of this system, and if blocks are allowed to grow freely: this system will consolidate on one node-miner and will make zero sense. It won't be a censorship-resistance transaction system and it will be COMPLETELY POINTLESS.

This has nothing to do with block size, but is an inherent property of PoW and economies of scale.  It is true that bigger blocks would push a bit faster to optimise the network topology to the reality of the client server nature of bitcoin but this is inverting cause and effect.  The network topology is not the cause of centralization, but its effect.  The real centralisation is the fact that only a few entities produce the data, the block chain.  The network only adapts to that reality but is not its cause.  PoW with specialized hardware and the economies of scale automatically lead to a few central mining centres.   That is not the block size or the network that push to that, it is the economies of scale in PoW and the smoothing out of the "lottery" (instead of winning once a whole block per year (or not), you prefer to have regular income with a pool).

This whole debate is misguided.  Block size has not much to do with it.  The real centralization is the fact that only 5 entities have majority hash power (and hash power is voting power in a PoW system), and that 14 entities have almost all hash power.  This is already the case.  The ILLUSION that the nodes are manifold, while they are only CLIENTS DOWNLOADING DATA from these 14 data centres through their proxies in the P2P network gives you the illusion that bitcoin is not centralized.  So this whole debate is simply about keeping up an illusion of decentralization by avoiding the network to adapt to the reality of the data flow.

[franky1]

Advancements in either p2pool software or something similar would go a long way in starting to alleviate the problems associated with mining centralization. Unfortunately, there hasn't been enough incentive to advance these things. I think instead of removing mining from the reference client, it should have adopted and improved upon the p2pool software.

No, really, once you have a cartel of pools, which is unavoidable with a PoW type income lottery, the network topology doesn't really matter, in *reality* you have a server/client system, where the pools are the collective server of block chain because they are the principal source of the data.  The other nodes in the network are nothing else but proxy servers of this data and ultimately, the clients.

you still dont understand. if you think nodes only job is a data store. then please go read some code

[Victorycoin]

BU is buggy right now.  Growing pains.  They need more mature process.

Guess what -- I still prefer it to Core.  Who cares how robust Core is when they want to change Bitcoin into something that's not even p2p electronic cash anymore.

Dude you can't be honestly still saying this is a good idea, a fucking closed source patch on what is supposed to replace Bitcoin? You have to be kidding me.

im sure its just a temporary patch and the fix will be open sourced soon

First foot forward is confirmed to be a mess that needed to be fixed - you still waiting and hoping this can storm half the weather Bitcoin have had to go through and still standing. They were quick to point at the small pebble in Bitcoin eyes, meanwhile they have logs of wood in their very own eyes. It helps to be able to see a red flag and recognize it for what it is.

[dinofelis]

you still dont understand. if you think nodes only job is a data store. then please go read some code

Yes, that's essentially it.  Non-mining nodes download the block chain, and verify it FOR THE OWNER OF THE NODE.  They also relate those data to other nodes wanting to download the block chain from them, and not directly from a miner node.  If the cartel of miners makes one single block chain, then those nodes have the choice between accepting that block chain, or stopping all together.

And they send upstream those transactions that wallets, connected to your node, want to send, if they prefer to send it through your node, and not directly to a miner's node.

A user wallet doesn't need your node.  It can connect directly to a miner node.  But it MAY use your node for, well, for what ?  Convenience maybe.  A big user will of course have its own node.  For instance, an exchange may install (will install) its own node.  But it can only download one single block chain, because there's only one single block chain "out there".  If it wants to serve its customers with deposits and withdrawals, it better installs a node that accepts the one and unique chain out there, and better transmits its transactions to the miners making that unique chain.  A big exchange better doesn't rely on the feable P2P links of unknown in the network, and preferentially connects DIRECTLY to some big miners.  To be sure to get their (unique) chain.  And to be sure that their transactions are not stopped by the P2P network for one or other reason.

The P2P network configuration, and the propagation of transactions and blocks made sense when miners were "everywhere on the network".  Then, the network as a whole, served as a kind of "filter", and stopped single miners from "colluding".  But that is over, now that there are 5 majority miners.  The P2P network is obsolete in the current configuration which is server/client.

[franky1]

you still dont understand. if you think nodes only job is a data store. then please go read some code

blah waffle

you have no clue.

i get the feeling your agenda is to make people think its ok to not care about running a full node. as if you want to brain wash people into thinking they have no way of controlling changes to bitcoin.

if you think nodes do nothing. then go be a centralist running a lite node. and let the ones that have been around longer and actually read and understood the code and consensus run a full node because we know what a full node actually does.

you spend too long trying to stroke sheep to sleep saying its ok for them to not be full nodes because core want to be dictators.
you have become too obvious with your endless rhetoric trying to suggest nodes are meaningless. so go play with a litenode if it means so much to you

[muyuu]

Advancements in either p2pool software or something similar would go a long way in starting to alleviate the problems associated with mining centralization. Unfortunately, there hasn't been enough incentive to advance these things. I think instead of removing mining from the reference client, it should have adopted and improved upon the p2pool software.

No, really, once you have a cartel of pools, which is unavoidable with a PoW type income lottery, the network topology doesn't really matter, in *reality* you have a server/client system, where the pools are the collective server of block chain because they are the principal source of the data.  The other nodes in the network are nothing else but proxy servers of this data and ultimately, the clients.

The real P2P nature of the network only made sense if a block could be mined *anywhere* on the network ; if essentially all nodes were also miners.   Then the whole network is at the same time client and server, and the P2P style network is justified.
But if you have a specialized set of nodes that *make* the data, and a *large quantity* of nodes that only *use* the data, then you get an automatic adaptation of the network topology to the reality of the data flow: server/client.

Note that *amongst* the mining pools, the P2P topology still makes sense ; this is why they most probably connect in an almost full mesh, because they don't trust one another (subcartels of selfish miners might form).  But FROM the mining pools to the non-mining nodes, the relationship is not P2P, but is client/server, and hence the optimal network topology adapts to that given.

Partly agreed: only blocksize won't stop this. However lifting the cap right now will accelerate the problem.

There is more work to be done to make this system useful in anyway whatsoever in the endgame.

Seems you think it's helpless, but I disagree. What I don't see is why do you care, because your theory implies that nothing will save Bitcoin from becoming a pointless Rube-Goldberg Paypal that ultimately won't be able to compete at anything.

[dinofelis]

you still dont understand. if you think nodes only job is a data store. then please go read some code

blah waffle

you have no clue.

i get the feeling your agenda is to make people think its ok to not care about running a full node. as if you want to brain wash people into thinking they have no way of controlling changes to bitcoin.

My only agenda is to understand all the aspects of this kind of system.

Yes, I'm convinced, and I explained you why, "running a node" is a useless exercise, except for yourself.  Not because I have an agenda, but because this is a logical consequence of a Proof of Work system.

Apart from "you have no clue" and "waffle waffle" your arguments are pretty weak.

if you think nodes do nothing. then go be a centralist running a lite node. and let the ones that have been around longer and actually read and understood the code and consensus run a full node because we know what a full node actually does.

you spend too long trying to stroke sheep to sleep saying its ok for them to not be full nodes because core want to be dictators.
you have become too obvious with your endless rhetoric trying to suggest nodes are meaningless. so go play with a litenode if it means so much to you

My "rhetoric" are observations, and logical arguments.  What is the real rhetoric:

"Proof of work systems are determined by those providing proof of work, and now they are, for obvious reasons, and also factually, a group of 5 - 14 entities"

Or:

"waffle waffle" and "you have no clue"

?

Which of both kinds of discourse is closest to "logical argument" and which one is closest to "rhetoric" ?

[Morbid]

BU is buggy right now.  Growing pains.  They need more mature process.

Guess what -- I still prefer it to Core.  Who cares how robust Core is when they want to change Bitcoin into something that's not even p2p electronic cash anymore.

Dude you can't be honestly still saying this is a good idea, a fucking closed source patch on what is supposed to replace Bitcoin? You have to be kidding me.

im sure its just a temporary patch and the fix will be open sourced soon

If it isn't temporary would that sway your opinion or would you stay loyal to the BU fork?

Code has to be open sourced, sure.  

Oh, Cmon man. Just admit that you were backing the wrong horse and be done with it. It is one thing standing up for principle and another losing everything because of it. The only reason why someone would openly support this crap, would be because they are paid shills or if they have no money invested in this and are just trolling.

I admit, Bitcoin Core is not the perfect solution, but it is way better than BU at this stage. ^hmmmmmm^

Not the perfect solution?  ANYTHING is better than Blockstream controlled Core.  Why else do you think 40% (and growing) of miners
are supporting BU , DESPITE all the bugs?

That said, I would back this:  
https://bitcoinec.info/

I don't like segwit, but I would compromise.

How many of that 40% are 2 or 3 big mining pools? You have to put yourself in their shoes for a moment. Someone is spamming the network with useless tx's and this is causing congestion. So what happens next? People start paying higher fees to get their tx's confirmed. The miners get these higher fees and smile all the way to the bank.

The longer they can draw this whole process out, the longer they get these higher fees.

SegWit and LN would eliminate these scenarios and this is why they are not supporting it. The BU solution is only a temporary fix and before we know it, we might end up with the same situations where fees are artificially pushed higher with "fake" congestion.

Would you not want to delay the process and keep the backdoor open for these situations to repeat in the future?

this. as with most bugcoiners they dont realise that blocksize increase is mere kicking the can down the road..

[dinofelis]

Partly agreed: only blocksize won't stop this. However lifting the cap right now will accelerate the problem.

I don't even see how this accelerates the "problem", the problem is already there.   In bitcoin, 5 entities have majority vote.  14 entities have "overwhelming 90% majority vote", and the dynamics explaining that are pretty clear: it is PoW investment, and the fact that the lottery of who wins a block introduces high volatility, which can be hedged by using a pool.  This is *inherent in PoW with ASICS*.

The only thing that can be accelerated by bigger blocks, is that the network topology will adapt somewhat quicker to the reality of the data flow, but the network topology AS SUCH doesn't matter.  So I would think it rather positive that the network adapts more to the reality, to render the network more efficient.  The network has in any case nothing to do with "decentralization" any more, since a long time.

That said, I don't believe ANYTHING will change in bitcoin.  I'm pretty convinced that we are just witnessing the "wars" that are part of the decentralized consensus mechanism that installs immutability (by antagonists not agreeing over change).

There is more work to be done to make this system useful in anyway whatsoever in the endgame.

My idea is that bitcoin is what it is, and will evolve to what it was designed to be: a reserve currency for unregulated big business.  (or nothing).

That "unregulated big business" can just as well be a "banking layer" on top of it, like LN, but it shouldn't be integrated in the protocol.  The banking layers should be independent layers, in competition with one another, and not one single style frozen in the protocol.  But I have not to say what "should be", as "nothing will be".  Immutability.

Seems you think it's helpless, but I disagree. What I don't see is why do you care, because your theory implies that nothing will save Bitcoin from becoming a pointless Rube-Goldberg Paypal that ultimately won't be able to compete at anything.

Yes.  My implication is comprehension of these systems.  I'm into this for the comprehension of decentralized systems, and the emergent properties and centralization forces.  It are very interesting times.  When I post my views on things, this allows me to put my ideas out for comment, and see where I didn't consider certain aspects.

I used to be enthusiastic about bitcoin, I'm now convinced that it contains several fundamental design errors, and I want to see how these design errors determine the "thing" that it will become.  I think it has something of a Frankenstein creation now, and I wonder what will become of it.  I only see three outcomes:

1) total centralization, huge adoption, and the Troyan horse TPTB will use against people ; but I give it little chance.  This is the Core way.  Worldwide bitcoin monopoly by a few dark forces no-one knows, worse than the current financial system.

2) Oligarchy of miners, bitcoin adoption niche as reserve currency for unregulated financial affairs that cannot be done with the fiat system ; backbone of "underground economy".  Bitcoin for the rich, sleazy business men.

3) Nothing.  Bitcoin losing its crown to alt coins, crashing into nothing.

[jonald_fyookball]

this. as with most bugcoiners they dont realise that blocksize increase is mere kicking the can down the road..

First of all, we need to kick the can down the road sometimes.

For example, if you're running a business and have a cashflow issue, then you need to tap your line of credit.  You handle
the immediate problem and keep operating while you're working to solve the long term issues.  You don't let your
business die while you try to come up with the perfect solution because by the time you find it, you won't have
a business.

Secondly, LN still needs large blocks to support a large number of transactions because things still need to settle back to the blockchain.  Do you understand how LN works?

[DoomDumas]

Closed source patch ??  WTF.. who dare to install this code and invest in this ??

SegWit is serious stuff, by serious and devoted poeple, thanks to all..

BU seems far away from just being viable..  short term and ever

Impressive !

[felipehermanns]

Closed source patch ??  WTF.. who dare to install this code and invest in this ??

SegWit is serious stuff, by serious and devoted poeple, thanks to all..

BU seems far away from just being viable..  short term and ever

Impressive !

BUG coin will die. The official name now is : Bug Unlimited...

[Jordan23]

this. as with most bugcoiners they dont realise that blocksize increase is mere kicking the can down the road..

First of all, we need to kick the can down the road sometimes.

For example, if you're running a business and have a cashflow issue, then you need to tap your line of credit.  You handle
the immediate problem and keep operating while you're working to solve the long term issues.  You don't let your
business die while you try to come up with the perfect solution because by the time you find it, you won't have
a business.

Secondly, LN still needs large blocks to support a large number of transactions because things still need to settle back to the blockchain.  Do you understand how LN works?

Just stop. You support closed code. Lol no on is coming with you. Enjoy your little crumbs. Poor people make me laugh.

[jonald_fyookball]

this. as with most bugcoiners they dont realise that blocksize increase is mere kicking the can down the road..

First of all, we need to kick the can down the road sometimes.

For example, if you're running a business and have a cashflow issue, then you need to tap your line of credit.  You handle
the immediate problem and keep operating while you're working to solve the long term issues.  You don't let your
business die while you try to come up with the perfect solution because by the time you find it, you won't have
a business.

Secondly, LN still needs large blocks to support a large number of transactions because things still need to settle back to the blockchain.  Do you understand how LN works?

Just stop. You support closed code. Lol no on is coming with you. Enjoy your little crumbs. Poor people make me laugh.

Don't put words in my mouth, you brainless pratt.

I support on chain scaling.  There can be a variety of implementations supporting
bigger blocks.  The fact that BU temporarily had a hotfix patch without source for a few hours is
no reason to stop supporting them. 

Enjoy defending Blockstream controlled core that doesn't give a shit about you.

[Wind_FURY]

SegWit as proposed already will increase the size of the block and the burden on nodes very substantially.
 

Fair enough.  I guess this is where we can shake hands and agree to disagree.  Sure Segwit offers *some* on chain scaling, but too little too late for my taste.

I want to ask if the increase in block size through Segwit not enough for the present number of transactions. Is it not already a big improvement? What do you think the average block size be today if we were using Bitcoin Unlimited?

I am not a segwit expert.  I have heard it starts at 1.7mb but I have also heard that assumes all wallets in the world are using it which probably isn't the case.

I think if we truly had 1.7 today it would be ok for the moment (assuming people that left bitcoin to start using altcoins came back) but the idea is always stay WELL ahead of the curve.

Remember that demand is affected by supply in the sense that if people experience (or even anticipate) a congested network, they will be preemptively dissuaded from using Bitcoin.  

So 1.7 or 2 might be ok for a few months but hopefully we grow far beyond that.

Then Segwit activation might not be that bad after all. Remember that it is not wholly a scaling solution but it also fixes a number of things that makes the network better.

I do agree that increasing the block sizes for the long term roadmap of Bitcoin is a must but it should be tested thoroughly and must be airtight secure. BU is simply not good enough.