Inviting reasoned and civil criticism of my big-block position please?

[thoughtfan]

Would you elaborate please what you mean by 'it doesn't scale'?

The time taken to process a block doesn't increase linearly with the size, it's quadratic.
If you double the blocksize, you multiply the time taken to process it by 4.
It gets very slow very quickly.

Thank you. I appreciate the simplicity in the what you say  - and if this is true because of something that could be addressed such that it isn't the case, then it is what I was referring to - which, for some reason, doesn't appear to be on the wiki list of big-block objections.

But apart from the possibility that this can be somehow addressed, given hashing difficulty will adjust to accommodate increases in time, is the problem with 'time taken to process by 4'  that it becomes a race, not just of hashing power, but of the processing required before hashing can commence? Could you link me to a reference that discusses this matter (preferably one where counterarguments can also be voiced and considered).

[K128kevin2]

Would you elaborate please what you mean by 'it doesn't scale'?

The time taken to process a block doesn't increase linearly with the size, it's quadratic.
If you double the blocksize, you multiply the time taken to process it by 4.
It gets very slow very quickly.

Thank you. I appreciate the simplicity in the what you say  - and if this is true because of something that could be addressed such that it isn't the case, then it is what I was referring to - which, for some reason, doesn't appear to be on the wiki list of big-block objections.

But apart from the possibility that this can be somehow addressed, given hashing difficulty will adjust to accommodate increases in time, is the problem with 'time taken to process by 4'  that it becomes a race, not just of hashing power, but of the processing required before hashing can commence? Could you link me to a reference that discusses this matter (preferably one where counterarguments can also be voiced and considered).

Sorry I didn't mean that it takes 4 times longer to mine. I mean when a block propagates through the network, every node needs to download, verify and then save it. The verification part is what takes longer (and also I suppose downloading and writing the block to disk would take longer too).

[AngryDwarf]

Would you elaborate please what you mean by 'it doesn't scale'?

The time taken to process a block doesn't increase linearly with the size, it's quadratic.
If you double the blocksize, you multiply the time taken to process it by 4.
It gets very slow very quickly.

Only for those transactions with have multiple inputs or outputs. So in the real world the validation time for a doubling in blocksize is going to be somewhere between 2 - 4 times longer. The more fragmented the UTXO set, the more it will tend towards the upper bound. And since even using big UTXO's to spend non UTXO amounts requires 1 input and 2 outputs, it is likely that it will be far higher than the lower bound.
The question is how much modern CPU's can cope with it, versus the miners risking of getting a block orphaned due to the validation time delay in releasing a block. So far miners have gone from 0.25MB, to 0.5MB, to 0.75MB to 1MB and coped. Now they can't go to 1.25MB because of an original anti-spam limit intention.

After reading above comment, this is about CPU validation time of transactions that are included in a block, and has nothing to do with hashing power.

[AngryDwarf]

Forgive me for a rather cynical criticism of your big-block position.

By keeping blocksize small, we limit the blockchain to a high value settlement layer. Small payments can be made through the Lightning Network.
By keeping blocksize small, the fees for moving transactions on the blockchain escalates. This wipes out users of small UTXO's. Only large value BTC holders will be able to open and close a Lightning Network channel.
By keeping blocksize small, we have wiped out the savings of small users. These users are now completely excluded from opening and closing lightning network channels.
To enable small users to use the Lightning Network, we will have to introduce a BTC derivative token which is backed by a big BTC holders reserves.

[Carlton Banks]

no one still have [...] explained [...] why simply increase the block size MB do not scale, unless "scale" doesn't simply mean having more transaction per second

if you change the scale of a map you get a lot more area shown for each increment increased. According to Carlton Banks's argument, this means at best, we get 'only' double transaction volume by doubling the block chain. For (I'll avoid the word scaling) increasing the potential transaction throughput to a number that would satisfy potential demand, we need something that does more than linear growth.

Yes, that's a good way of re-stating what I mean when I say "Blocksize increases do not change the scale".

Talking of Gavin, I omitted your references to 'flaming and pretentious' and dismiss the oft-repeated 'Gavin [having gone] full retard' as an example of some of the phenomena I talk about in the last post. I'm trying to put such statements to one side and not let it colour my preparedness to listen to the reasoned arguments people who are saying such things are making. At the risk of sounding patronising, I suggest others participating here do likewise.

No.

Do not attempt to police my language. There is nothing wrong with describing foolish ideas as foolish, irrespective of the connotations the descriptions carry.

Gavin's original 2015 plan was foolish, but only because he decided to execute the steps in the wrong (i.e. reverse) order. His advocacy of attacking Bitcoin Core's blockchain was both foolish and reckless, and I absolutely reserve the right to denigrate that behaviour in any way I see fit.

How dare you solicit opinions, only to dismiss well-founded and demonstrated criticism as unimportant. Foolishness is foolish, recklessness is reckless. And really, Andresen was also suggesting to use overwhelming hashing power, in other words brute force, to destroy the Bitcoin project and replace it entirely with a different design of the Bitcoin software that he others favour, when there is nothing wrong with hard-forking amicably and non-destructively.

Calling that retarded is charitable, it's actually vindictive. Would you prefer that I said Gavin Andresen has behaved nastily, vindictively and duplicitiously (it's all dressed up as "I'm only trying to help") ?

Who are you to police the way I express these observable facts in respect of Gavin Andresen's recent despicable behaviour?

[thoughtfan]

...

Yes, that's a good way of re-stating what I mean when I say "Blocksize increases do not change the scale".

Thank you for the clarification - and I appreciate the manner with which you stated it.

Talking of Gavin, I omitted your references to 'flaming and pretentious' and dismiss the oft-repeated 'Gavin [having gone] full retard' as an example of some of the phenomena I talk about in the last post. I'm trying to put such statements to one side and not let it colour my preparedness to listen to the reasoned arguments people who are saying such things are making. At the risk of sounding patronising, I suggest others participating here do likewise.

No.

Do not attempt to police my language.

...

Who are you to police the way ...

That was absolutely not my intention and I apologise if it came over that way. What I was attempting - and have clearly failed - to accomplish was to keep the tone of the discussion as per my OP subject. Had this conversation happened between us in person, had you mentioned Gavin 'going full retard' with a few others in the room listening, participating, I may - seeing what's to be seen in your face and demeanour when talking, hearing the tone of your voice etc. - have responded with different words or in a manner that I doubt very much would have resulted in a verbal outburst such that you just wrote.

Whatever you think, I don't think speaking in this manner of someone nor speaking in the way in which you've now responded is helpful. I am not a moderator. I have no control over anything anyone may wish to say. I certainly would never wish to imply for a fraction of a second that I don't absolutely respect yours and everybody's rights to express whatever they wish.

How dare you solicit opinions, only to dismiss well-founded and demonstrated criticism as unimportant.

I did not say it was unimportant. I was merely attempting to keep the tone of the conversation to that which I find most constructive.

...and I absolutely reserve the right to denigrate that behaviour in any way I see fit.

and I will defend your right to say whatever you want in whichever way you want wherever you want (within reason). I will also defend my right to request, at least in this thread that we keep things civil and, even if by implication that we drop the ad homs. I won't either apologise for responding to something I find to be unhelpful accordingly - even if I'm wrong and Gavin actually is...... (not that I agree with you).

There is nothing wrong with describing foolish ideas as foolish, irrespective of the connotations the descriptions carry.

...Foolishness is foolish, recklessness is reckless...

And I'm trying to draw attention to the fundamental and important distinction between saying something is foolish and calling someone a fool - or worse.

I'm not so interested in what's right or wrong at this stage in this context but of what's helpful in having any hope in having this conversation move towards a resolution rather than the community and the demise of the first mover.

Gavin's original 2015 plan was foolish, but only because he decided to execute the steps in the wrong (i.e. reverse) order.

I can follow that argument, and may agree that, all things considered, he may have been advocating for a sequence that would make more sense otherwise.

However, neither you nor I are privy to all the considerations, circumstances, understanding, even over-riding life paradigm, that Gavin did at the time. I'm happy with 'I disagree' or 'having done as much research and study as I can to understand things to the extent I do, I can see no circumstance in which what Gavin advocated makes sense' - I've made a similar statement in this thread myself about something else.

I think going as far as to say 'I'm right' is unhelpful.
Taking it to 'He's wrong' is less helpful.
Taking it to 'he must be stupid, corrupt, etc.' is less helpful.
Taking it to 'he's an absolute *Y(^&^&&**&' is less helpful.
(and not that you said this but just to complete this list)...
Taking it 'this person still has respect for him therefore he / she must also be wrong, stupid, corrupt, an absolute *Y(^&^&&**&' is less helpful still - and it is this last one that appears to be dominating most of the Reddit Bitcoin-related subreddits.

I was hoping for better than that if only in this particular thread. And to be fair, to a significant a large extent I am being rewarded - from yourself included.

[thoughtfan]

Would you elaborate please what you mean by 'it doesn't scale'?

The time taken to process a block doesn't increase linearly with the size, it's quadratic.
If you double the blocksize, you multiply the time taken to process it by 4.
It gets very slow very quickly.

Only for those transactions with have multiple inputs or outputs. So in the real world the validation time for a doubling in blocksize is going to be somewhere between 2 - 4 times longer. The more fragmented the UTXO set, the more it will tend towards the upper bound. And since even using big UTXO's to spend non UTXO amounts requires 1 input and 2 outputs, it is likely that it will be far higher than the lower bound.
The question is how much modern CPU's can cope with it, versus the miners risking of getting a block orphaned due to the validation time delay in releasing a block. So far miners have gone from 0.25MB, to 0.5MB, to 0.75MB to 1MB and coped. Now they can't go to 1.25MB because of an original anti-spam limit intention.

After reading above comment, this is about CPU validation time of transactions that are included in a block, and has nothing to do with hashing power.

Thank you, I can more-or-less follow that and it makes sense to me. I'm hoping, though I can't entirely trust myself on this, that that is more because I follow the reasoning in your logic than that I'm agreeing because we're in agreement of the harmfulness of the current block-size limit!

[thoughtfan]

Forgive me for a rather cynical criticism of your big-block position.

By keeping blocksize small, we limit the blockchain to a high value settlement layer. Small payments can be made through the Lightning Network.
By keeping blocksize small, the fees for moving transactions on the blockchain escalates. This wipes out users of small UTXO's. Only large value BTC holders will be able to open and close a Lightning Network channel.
By keeping blocksize small, we have wiped out the savings of small users. These users are now completely excluded from opening and closing lightning network channels.
To enable small users to use the Lightning Network, we will have to introduce a BTC derivative token which is backed by a big BTC holders reserves.

I'm not seeing this as cynical at all. I'm pleased you've expressed this point as succinctly as you have. It is my position too and I'm failing at present to see flaws in this reasoning.

At the risk of being cynical myself, if we follow this through, the wiping out of the savings of small users reduces the usable currency so in a kind-of parallel to the argument small-blockers make about big miners using orphaning to push out small miners, what we have here going on right now is big hodlers gradually seeing the usable coin further reduce from 21 million (minus yet-to-be-mined, minus losses). In practical terms, losses through wiped-out savings are have the same impact on value (by reducing available coin) as losses through private-key loss. So it is in the interest of substantial hodlers that the advocates of high on-chain transaction fees continue to get their way - providing of course, that restricting the use cases to three as per Core-plan (please see OP) doesn't cause the collapse of Bitcoin altogether.

Unfortunately, I get the impression there's a not insubstantial number of hodlers of reasonable sums in the 'f*** you, I'm all right Jack' subset of ancaps / libertarians / gold-bugs. This could - and may already - be influencing the failure for this to have moved forward for so long.

[AngryDwarf]

Unfortunately, I get the impression there's a not insubstantial number of hodlers of reasonable sums in the 'f*** you, I'm all right Jack' subset of ancaps / libertarians / gold-bugs. This could - and may already - be influencing the failure for this to have moved forward for so long.

I'd take such polls with a little pinch of salt:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1852232.0

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1726836.0

So around 30% own more than 21 BTC, and 46% own less than 1 BTC. Don't forget to add a bit of pepper too!

[franky1]

And that's the same ratio, for 1MB or 2MB. i.e. 1:3 is exactly equivalent to 2:6

and yet segwit is the same argument at best. and even worse realistically

4mb weight but only AT BEST 2x tx capacity growth.
and thats at best because it only works if people actually move funds to segwit keypairs

thus segwit is not even a proper scaling thing, even if you ignore that its a one time gesture because you cant re-segwit a segwit

secondly the real data behind sgwits new 'limits'
is
AT BEST 2.1mb for 2.1x capacity
so ignoring the existance of limits. segwit
1mb full data: 1x capacity
is the same as
2.1mb full data:2.1 capacity.

but we all know segwit is not about capacity and wont even get to the 2.1mb:2.1capacity 'hope' because that involves everyone using segwit keys
(the entire 46 million UTXO being on segwit keys and no one using native keys)

its also reliant on no one spamming the block. which carlton himself has revealed new spam attack vectors. and segwit has not prevented old spam attack vectors. segwit has just offered people a new keypair to voluntarily disarm itself from performing particular attacks, which malicious users will not voluntarily disarm themselves from.

[franky1]

the real funny part is the whole quadratics tx validations speed debate is about

a tx with ~4000 sigops. take 10 seconds
a tx with >20000 sigops takes 11 minutes.
https://rusty.ozlabs.org/?p=522

This Block Isn’t The Worst Case (For An Optimized Implementation)

As I said above, the amount we have to hash is about 6k; if a transaction has larger outputs, that number changes.  We can fit in fewer inputs though.  A simple simulation shows the worst case for 1MB transaction has 3300 inputs, and 406000 byte output(s): simply doing the hashing for input signatures takes about 10.9 seconds.  That’s only about two or three times faster than the bitcoind naive implementation.

This problem is far worse if blocks were 8MB: an 8MB transaction with 22,500 inputs and 3.95MB of outputs takes over 11 minutes to hash.  If you can mine one of those, you can keep competitors off your heels forever, and own the bitcoin network… Well, probably not.  But there’d be a lot of emergency patching, forking and screaming…

yet.

core v0.12 maxTXsigops limit=4000ops
core v0.14 maxTXsigops limit=16000ops

meaning native key malicious users can cause tx validation speeds to be more annoying, not less
also

core v0.12 maxBLOCKsigops limit=20000ops
core v0.14 maxBLOCKsigops limit=80000ops

meaning native key malicious users can cause tx validation speeds to be more annoying, AND they can fill a block with just 5 bloated txsigops of the limits. preventing any other tx getting in.

what should have been done is
core v0.14 maxTXsigops limit=2000ops
core v0.14 maxBLOCKsigops limit=80000ops

thus both bring the tx validating speed down to a few seconds at most AND making it require 40tx malicious tx's to fill a block.

my personal opinion is why does anyone need/deserve 20% of a block for 1tx. its mindboggling

[Slark]

then miners like antpool must be stupid, seeing how they signaling for a straight block size increase without knowing this or maybe what you are saying it's not 100% correct or partially missing something

Miners are not stupid they are doing it deliberately because they are scared that SegWit+LN will cause them to lose profits.
Current status quo is great for all miners, high fees and total impasse of the situation will cause them to collect the fees for long time.
Eventually they move on, but not before earning shit ton of BTC from fees. They love fees.

Also what BW Pool is thinking signalling 8MB blocks?

[DannyHamilton]

There is a wedge that is being driven into the heart of bitcoin.  Anyone that tries to empathize with either side of that wedge is accused of supporting that side and of being against the opposite.  I've been accused of being a "big blocker", because I empathize with those that see merit in Unlimited.  I've been accused of being a Blockstream shill, because I empathize with those that see merit in Core.

The reality is that Bitcoin is a consensus system.  If the vast majority are happy with a particular implementation, then that implementation IS bitcoin and WILL succeed.  If that majority shrinks too much, it's not the fault of the people that are unhappy with the changes, and its not the fault of the people that want the changes.  The system starts to fail simply because people are too focused on "us vs. them" mentality, accusations, insults, fear, uncertainty, doubt, and belittling.  The system starts to fail because not enough people are focused on education, and discussion.

If Unlimited or SegWit fails, it isn't because it is an inferior solution, it's because the loudest supporters did everything they could to alienate those that didn't deify and blindly follow their side. You can't win consensus by telling your opponents off.

If Unlimited or SegWit succeeds, it isn't because it's a superior solution, it's because enough supporters finally realized that they needed to drown out the trolls and attack dogs on their own side with enough cooperation, empathy, and education to win over hearts and minds.

This isn't a technical problem, and it isn't a war.  This isn't going to be solved with a newer better technical solution, and it isn't going to be won by beating opponents into submission. It's going to be solved with consensus forming, or it's going to rip the bitcoin concept apart at the seams.

[Carlton Banks]

and I will defend your right to say whatever you want in whichever way you want wherever you want (within reason).

No you will not.

The only way to limit me to your personal definition of "reasonable" free speech is to sew my mouth shut with a needle and thread.

Do not even suggest that free speech requires some arbitrator to decide on what is "reasonable" or "responsible" to define limits to that which is by definition unlimited. You are not responsible for my speech, you are responsible for your own. You will do very well to respect those boundaries, lest you manoeuvre yourself towards defining limits to your concept of "free" speech again

Non-contentious speech has never required protecting. Controversial speech is the only form of speech that needs the principle of free speech for it's protection. Your hypocritical and contradictory attack against the principles of free-speech, which you have cleverly disguised as a defence of free-speech, deserve just as fierce a denigration as Gavin Andresen's conceited attacks on Bitcoin's principles.


Don't do it again

I will also defend my right to request, at least in this thread that we keep things civil and, even if by implication that we drop the ad homs. I won't either apologise for responding to something I find to be unhelpful accordingly - even if I'm wrong and Gavin actually is...... (not that I agree with you).

... I'm trying to draw attention to the fundamental and important distinction between saying something is foolish and calling someone a fool - or worse.

Who is making ad hominem statements? Provide evidence

It's very simple, Gavin Andresen has made several public statements of his views on changing Bitcoin's transaction capacity that were objectively foolish.


That was all I said, and strike me with your "reasonable" free-speech stick if you dislike the way I expressed that fact.

Ad hominem arguments are not arguments at all, there is no component of ad homs that serves as justification for the label used as an ad hominem, it is a non argument that attacks an individual's character, and not the substance of what they are communicating.


I have provided full and reasoned arguments for why Gavin Andresen's arguments are foolish. I did not call the man a fool, he most certainly is not a fool.

I'm not so interested in what's right or wrong at this stage in this context but of what's helpful in having any hope in having this conversation move towards a resolution rather than the community and the demise of the first mover.

If you're not interested in what's right or wrong, and only want a discussion where an agreement is reached, then you inherently misunderstand the debate.


This is not, and never has been, an argument about increasing capacity at a better scale, or about "which blocksize". If you do not understand that at this stage, you are at a disadvantage to make meaningful commentary in your own thread.

Gavin's original 2015 plan was foolish, but only because he decided to execute the steps in the wrong (i.e. reverse) order.

I can follow that argument, and may agree that, all things considered, he may have been advocating for a sequence that would make more sense otherwise.

However, neither you nor I are privy to all the considerations, circumstances, understanding, even over-riding life paradigm, that Gavin did at the time. I'm happy with 'I disagree' or 'having done as much research and study as I can to understand things to the extent I do, I can see no circumstance in which what Gavin advocated makes sense' - I've made a similar statement in this thread myself about something else.

What mitigating circumstances from Gavin Andresen's life, exterior to the debate, can excuse him from making foolish or dangerous public statements?

Is it not your entire position that personal characteristics are not important, and that the substance of what that person says is all that's pertinent? Except, apparently, when it's convenient for you to argue the antithesis of your ostensible principles

I think going as far as to say 'I'm right' is unhelpful.
Taking it to 'He's wrong' is less helpful.
Taking it to 'he must be stupid, corrupt, etc.' is less helpful.
Taking it to 'he's an absolute *Y(^&^&&**&' is less helpful.
(and not that you said this but just to complete this list)...
Taking it 'this person still has respect for him therefore he / she must also be wrong, stupid, corrupt, an absolute *Y(^&^&&**&' is less helpful still - and it is this last one that appears to be dominating most of the Reddit Bitcoin-related subreddits.

I was hoping for better than that if only in this particular thread. And to be fair, to a significant a large extent I am being rewarded - from yourself included.

What is the purpose of this text?

You are implying you do not speak in respect of a specific person or any specific dialogue in this thread, and yet you feel the need to spend 8 lines talking about no-one in respect of something that didn't happen? All except you are saying this specifically in reply to me?


You are the only person perpetrating ad hominem attacks (and deviously constructed as such), strawman arguments and attacks against free speech in a thread which you created yourself with the expressed (and self-contradicted) purpose to establish a high quality of debate.


There's a word for someone who behaves that way. I don't need to say it, I'm sure people who understand the form of bad faith you are exhibiting have thought of this word themselves long before this point.

[classicsucks]

Preamble you can skip if you want: I'm as guilty as many on both sides of snarky, smart-arse comments but tonight I just spent a very enjoyable hour (doing a face-to-face trade) with two who hold different opinions than me. I think we all learned something and I'm confident we all had more respect for the legitimacy of holding a different view from ourselves.

My primary point is that a technical expertise does not make one an economics expert and therefore there's a danger in trusting the technical experts to make the decisions that risk what has proven to work thus far i.e. enough space to accommodate almost all transactions.

Bingo - also remember that technical experts often have diminished social skills because they don't interact face to face. They engage in childish one-upmanship and penis-size wars from behind a keyboard. They live in a world where tech is God, and increasingly ignore the practical uses of bitcoin.  At this point the technical experts at Core have pretty much disappeared even from discussions on the forum. They demonstrate no leadership at all. Calls for Lightning are becoming increasingly hollow. Proposals being floated like UASF (User activated soft fork) and changing the POW (!) show their increasing desperation, and simply increase the velocity of Core's loss of credibility (even though Core is not overtly supporting those proposals, they're also not dismissing them out of hand as they should). Of course Core lives in constant fear that Unlimited will ursurp their role as custodians of bitcoin code - this would be the ultimate blow to their egos. Core likely won't ever give up on Segwit and roll back the code, because Blockstream's $75 million investment depends on it and the subsequent implementation of Lightning. They will go to the grave together.

Remember that there are many possible paths that the majority can choose - two years from now "bitcoin development" may be only the stuff of internet archives. Personally I'm OK with core version 0.12 (no Segwit, 1MB blocks) if that's the only thing we can agree on. Whoever was flooding the mempool last month has stopped (I have my theories), and transactions are flowing fine now. Bitcoin adoption is stagnating, which is sad, but it doesn't mean the end of the technology.

The failure to do something about the transaction bottleneck before it started to nudge fees up and (and/or cause delays orders of magnitude higher than before) is and will continue to have an impact. This isn't about laying blame today. I think it's fair to say all stakeholders (in the wider use of the term) including developers, miners, other users and moderators jointly - if not equally - have to-date failed to make a change a user can use today.
I am looking forward to seeing 2nd layer off-chain solutions bringing all kinds of new use cases. I also mourn the loss of the use of the blockchain for the other use cases as their viability is eroded to nothing by fees and delays.

As I see it, those whose judgement on Bitcoin's future has apparently earned the respect of the majority on this sub due to their technical merit, have a plan that accepts the loss of the multitude of use cases (on-chain) as a price worth paying to have Bitcoin be as strong as possible for the three use cases they deem worthy: censorship-resistant-currency, store-of-value, settlement-layer.

From what I understand of 2nd layer channels, they're not going to serve the Sudanese and those in the many countries where the spread of mobile telephony means they could potentially exchange what for us are small amounts to protect themselves. My hope is that Bitcoin can still do this - as I believe was the vision of Satoshi and as I understand some with a much better technical understanding than me (GA, for one) believe is still possible.

Peer-to-peer trustless systems have inherent limitations: each node only has the ability to process X transactions per second using Y network capacity and Z storage space. In this case, the bitcoin network's capacity has been artifically limited by 1MB blocksize before other technical limits were hit. Some argue that XYZ limits wouldn't have been hit due to a blocksize increase, and that clinging to the blocksize limit is an attempt to sell 2nd layer solutions.  Regardless of the motivation, the blocksize limit has unquestionably reduced the speed, utility, and credibility of the bitcoin network, all while increasing the cost, and Core has been completely ignoring this trend for years!

PS I don't recommend engaging with Carlton if you're looking for productive dialogue... just saying

[thoughtfan]

It seems everyone else has lost interest in this thread otherwise I'd be tempted to simply ignore this response. But seeing as there's no discussion to derail by pursuing it...

I have to say I'm beginning to suspect you're having me on here. You're not seriously as outraged as you make out are you - because I criticised your reference to Gavin Anderson, saying that I wouldn't respond to it - or some such?

and I will defend your right to say whatever you want in whichever way you want wherever you want (within reason).

No you will not.

Oh yes I will (sorry, I can't think of anything more appropriate than a pantomime response to that one)!

The only way to limit me to your personal definition of "reasonable" free speech is to sew my mouth shut with a needle and thread.

Do not even suggest that free speech requires some arbitrator to decide on what is "reasonable" or "responsible" to define limits to that which is by definition unlimited. You are not responsible for my speech, you are responsible for your own.

Melodrama aside, you are correct with respect to my only being responsible for my own speech. I have no interest whatsoever in limiting your speech to whatever 'my personal definition of reasonable'. The 'within reason' qualifier was simply an acknowledgement to what I tend to agree are sensible limits to free speech as exemplified by Wendell Holmes Jr's 'shouting fire in a crowded theatre'. I was not referring to what you say in this thread or on this or any forum. I don't know of any clearer way I could say that I accept and would not wish to impinge or restrict in any way your freedom of speech.

Regarding this thread, I had merely expressed a preference for the tone here and after your Gavin reference, I had implied that in my opinion you had not respected that and that I would not respond to itf. You jumped on your high horse. I accepted that and said you're welcome to say what you want. I was just politely asking - from the top - that opinions here be expressed in a much narrower format than free speech allows. I requested that, you chose otherwise. So be it. I'm not offended. I haven't a clue what you're so hot under the collar about!

Non-contentious speech has never required protecting. Controversial speech is the only form of speech that needs the principle of free speech for it's protection.

Yes, absolutely. Here at least we are both on the same page, if only you could see that!

Your hypocritical and contradictory attack against the principles of free-speech, which you have cleverly disguised as a defence of free-speech, deserve just as fierce a denigration as Gavin Andresen's conceited attacks on Bitcoin's principles.

Oh my, and don't you love it when you believe that's happened because you can feel self-righteous in going off the handle and laying into those who offend you so!
Look Carlton, Please go back and read it again. If you take away your apparent misinterpretation of my 'within reason' and accept I was talking about principle (seeing as that was the direction you'd gone in), not about whatever you may choose to say in the thread I'd started (the moderators would jump in and intervene LOOOOONG before I'd say anything here 'should not be said'. The rest was just an expression of a preference. And if you understand free speech as well as you believe you do, you'll realise I do have a right to express a preference.

Don't do it again

Get a grip! Who do you think you are, my mother?!!

I will also defend my right to request, at least in this thread that we keep things civil and, even if by implication that we drop the ad homs. I won't either apologise for responding to something I find to be unhelpful accordingly - even if I'm wrong and Gavin actually is...... (not that I agree with you).

... I'm trying to draw attention to the fundamental and important distinction between saying something is foolish and calling someone a fool - or worse.

Who is making ad hominem statements? Provide evidence

Are you seriously trying to claim here that saying that someone has 'gone full retard' is not an attack on a person but on the substance of his argument?

At this point, I think we've gone past any hope of you and I deriving any benefit from taking this further. I haven't yet, but seeing as you went to the trouble of writing the rest, I will at least respect that and read it and give it consideration - but I won't respond because I believe by now it's a waste both of your time and mine.

I'll wish you the best.

[Carlton Banks]

The 'within reason' qualifier was simply an acknowledgement to what I tend to agree are sensible limits to free speech as exemplified by Wendell Holmes Jr's 'shouting fire in a crowded theatre'.

The original and best canard that is always invoked by those that wish to suppress the "free" in  "free speech"


1. Theatres are private property. Free speech does not apply on private property, the proprietor may rightfully eject anyone they deem to

I could stop there, because that's the literal No.1 killer blow to this statist idiocy, but I love deconstructing this nonsense non-argument


The patrons of any theatre have common sense on their side if someone were to falsely shout "fire"

2. Theater's are dark, on account of their evening schedule. Even with the lights up they are difficult to keep well lit, as theatres are typically rather spacious. Fires are highly visible in dark places, because of how bright they are in contrast to the darkness.

3. The dulling of one sense (i.e absence of light in the theater) tends to enhance the perception of other senses. Other patrons may well smell the smoke before a fire becomes visible enough to see.


There are no limits to free speech. The "shouting fire in a crowded space argument" argument doesn't cut it. If danger to others were justification for limiting free-speech, censoring the blocksize debate would have been accepted a long, long time ago (although false accusations of censoring that debate are still used as anti-Bitcointalk propaganda even today)

[thoughtfan]

PS I don't recommend engaging with Carlton if you're looking for productive dialogue... just saying

Ah, thanks for this - I thought I was going mad for a moment. Glad it's not just me! I have to say I haven't hung out round these parts for a couple of years (since the politically-motivated 'moderation' got out of hand) so I don't really know who is who. Funnily enough, I only posted this here because after having written it and posted it on r/bitcoin it lasted about three likes and ten minutes before being removed so I thought I'd try here. No point in posting it in /rbc because I'd just get choruses of 'yeah, they're all corrupt and blah blah'. Not saying they're not right, but not helpful to me in trying to really be as open as I can to arguments from any side.

...
My primary point is that a technical expertise does not make one an economics expert and therefore there's a danger in trusting the technical experts to make the decisions that risk what has proven to work thus far i.e. enough space to accommodate almost all transactions.

Bingo - also remember that technical experts often have diminished social skills because they don't interact face to face. They engage in childish one-upmanship and penis-size wars from behind a keyboard. They live in a world where tech is God, and increasingly ignore the practical uses of bitcoin.  At this point the technical experts at Core have pretty much disappeared even from discussions on the forum. They demonstrate no leadership at all. Calls for Lightning are becoming increasingly hollow. Proposals being floated like UASF (User activated soft fork) and changing the POW (!) show their increasing desperation, and simply increase the velocity of Core's loss of credibility (even though Core is not overtly supporting those proposals, they're also not dismissing them out of hand as they should). Of course Core lives in constant fear that Unlimited will ursurp their role as custodians of bitcoin code - this would be the ultimate blow to their egos. Core likely won't ever give up on Segwit and roll back the code, because Blockstream's $75 million investment depends on it and the subsequent implementation of Lightning. They will go to the grave together.

I hear you - and I think stating some of the things in this way may not be conducive to bringing the debate back to economic and technical considerations. There may be an element of the lack of social skills with some technical experts, but I don't think to generalise about Core that way is likely to get the people you might most need to hear your arguments to listen.

Only last night was I wondering whether Core would consider rolling back segwit if it doesn't get accepted within the year. But my fear is there is so much pride at stake - too many egos to be bruised by stepping back and acknowledging the other side might have had a point that the extremes on both sides may prefer to see the ship go down than to climb down. On Blockstream (at least you didn't go the whole Axa / Bildaberg), whilst there is a possibility there may be influence, first, I'm not convinced it's substantial, second, there's no need to go there to make constructive arguments against the block-size limit and third, again, it really doesn't help! For any Core contributors who have been convinced by the technical merits of the path they've taken, these kinds of accusations just sound ludicrous and those making them will be dismissed and any valid points they have will be lost. It's the same as the r/Bitcoin Core fanbois assuming and accusing anyone who is not in full agreement with them of being paid by Ver. Sometimes it seems like the whole community (if I may borrow Carlton's phrase) has gone 'full retard'! 'It's too late for compromise' is just a way of justifying a refusal to listen and to engage without sounding like a five-year-old. But I'm beginning to think if we picture stubborn five-year-olds refusing point blank to listen to anyone and sticking to what they want irrespective of anyone and everything, that's closer to what's going on here than most would like to acknowledge.

Peer-to-peer trustless systems have inherent limitations: each node only has the ability to process X transactions per second using Y network capacity and Z storage space. In this case, the bitcoin network's capacity has been artifically limited by 1MB blocksize before other technical limits were hit.

Thank you for saying this. It needs to be heard more often from 'our' side of the debate. What the first 'natural' bottlenecks would have been and when they might have begun to have an impact is a matter of educated (or not-so-educated) guesswork. But there is no doubt it would - and will if we get past the present impasse.

In this case, the bitcoin network's capacity has been artifically limited by 1MB blocksize before other technical limits were hit. Some argue that XYZ limits wouldn't have been hit due to a blocksize increase, and that clinging to the blocksize limit is an attempt to sell 2nd layer solutions.  Regardless of the motivation, the blocksize limit has unquestionably reduced the speed, utility, and credibility of the bitcoin network, all while increasing the cost

One of the most frustrating aspects to me are the economic illiterate arguments that this forced 'fee market' is a positive thing. It is economic rent and from Adam Smith, those who get it know that it is crippling to an economy - as it is increasingly crippling to the economy as we feel its impact.

...and Core has been completely ignoring this trend for years!

I don't think that's fair. Many have been engaged in the debate for a long time. But here's how I see it: when a small number refused to consider they may not be seeing the whole picture, that they may be mistaken in their view, when that stubbornness resulted in the loss to the project of some sharp minds such that they could steer the rest of the contributors to do things their way, there was a high likelihood we'd get to the split community we have today. Add to that the campaign to control the narrative and stifle discontent and I'd say it was almost inevitable we'd reach here.

[thoughtfan]

The 'within reason' qualifier was simply an acknowledgement to what I tend to agree are sensible limits to free speech as exemplified by Wendell Holmes Jr's 'shouting fire in a crowded theatre'.

The original and best canard that is always invoked by those that wish to suppress the "free" in  "free speech"

That may well be so. Except in this instance, as you can not but understand by now, I wasn't was I? Whether the original misunderstanding was genuine or not, by now you're just being obtuse, riding that horse high, and proclaiming to the world how you know better than everybody else what free speech means.

OK, so we've discovered I have a different theoretical opinion than you on the limitations (or lack thereof) of free speech. But given your insistence that it does not apply in a theatre because it is private, how on earth does can you genuinely believe it has any bearing on my choice to ignore - and to declare that I ignore - something you wrote that - as I saw it - was not in line with the spirit of what I was intending by instigating this particular thread?

I think I'll hand you the award of thread de-railer and leave it at that.

[d5000]

From what I understand of 2nd layer channels, they're not going to serve the Sudanese and those in the many countries where the spread of mobile telephony means they could potentially exchange what for us are small amounts to protect themselves. My hope is that Bitcoin can still do this - as I believe was the vision of Satoshi and as I understand some with a much better technical understanding than me (GA, for one) believe is still possible.

You apparently are limiting "2nd layers" to lightning-network-like "payment channels" proposals. LN would be available in the whole world, also in Sudan, because it's not limited to a geographic region. But you are right that for a person with a unstable Internet connection LN comes with certain risks (the counterparty could try to scam you reverting to an older channel state while you're not connected).

But there are other ideas like sidechains/drivechains and extension blocks that don't have this problem. They preserve the "blockchain transaction paradigm" in the sense that there is no third party involved. Drivechains are "pegged altcoins" that are meant to be secured by the same miners than the main chain via merged mining; miners would also be the entity that decide if coins can be transferred back to the main chain (in my understanding, that's the hard problem of sidechains). As sidechains are independent blockchains, there can be a large number of them working in parallel.

I prefer these solutions for the scaling problem, and LN for small microtransactions like the coffee at Room77 (or in a Sudanese bar)