The Barry Silbert segwit2x agreement with >80% miner support.

[dinofelis]

...In other words, instead of a difficulty adjustment every 2016 blocks, one should have a difficulty adjustment following Moore's law...

1965 is over and we've about reached the end of Moore's law. 

Absolutely not.   Moore's law is alive and kicking.  But Moore's law is an *economic* law, not a law of raw performance.

The complexity for minimum component costs has increased at a rate of roughly a factor of two per year. Certainly over the short term this rate can be expected to continue, if not to increase. Over the longer term, the rate of increase is a bit more uncertain, although there is no reason to believe it will not remain nearly constant for at least 10 years.

Essentially, he says that the cost of an individual electronic function goes down by a factor of 2 every 1.5 years, and that's exactly what we need for the economic cost of proof of work.

It doesn't mean that the computational power of a laptop will increase by a factor of 2 every 1.5 years ; that could be a manifestation, but it could just as well be that a telephone with same functionality as 1.5 years ago, is half as expensive.

[1715626289]

1715626289

[1715626289]

1715626289

[1715626289]

1715626289

[The One]

The original blocksize was 32mb and the 1mb was temporary anti-spam measure.

Not correct.  No version of bitcoin has been able to handle blocks larger than 1 MB.  When the 1 MB limit was set, bitcoin would still choke on 1 MB blocks.  Miners producing much smaller blocks would win any race, because nodes receiving the 1 MB block would crash.  Large blocks wouldn't propagate to other nodes.

Researchers have figured out that blocks larger than about 4 MB would be unsafe.  This is why segwit is capped at 4 MB.  If it was a way to make bitcoin work just as well with even larger blocks, it would probably have been implemented in segwit.  Fortunately the parameters have been chosen by scientists, not users.

The stubbornness and refusal to raise the limit created a side effect of bad business policy

The limit is a hard blockchain rule, not a business policy.  Splitting bitcoin in two would not only be a bad technical decision, it would be bad for businesses as well.  Especially small businesses like mine.

I do wish people on here studied accountancy like myself, then people would have a better understanding of Bitcoin.

LOL!

Btw, the economic properties of the block size limit become obvious when the txfee rewards are much larger than the block reward, which is going to happen faster with larger blocks.  It will no longer be profitable to build on a new block for a miner.  Instead he will try to steal the fees from the previous block by mining a new block at the same height, at least until the fees from waiting transactions in the mempool are higher than in the last mined block.  Thereby leading to steadily increasing txfees.  This is what miners want, not necessarily what users want.

Crash or orphan? The race to win a POW subsidy is somewhat a bizarre race. Miner A solves POW. Miner B solves POW 1 second later. Miner A filling up a block, whilst miner B just send an empty block and wins the race. Should the race be - Miner A solves a block and broadcast it to all miner nodes. Miners' nodes acknowledge it and broadcast it. A count is made that miner A is the winner and miner A fills the block and propagate it, without worrying another miner crossing the line first with an empty block. If miner B solves a POW 1 second later and broadcast it, a count is made that miner A is the winner by majority vote. If vote is a tie then winner based on block propagation.

All subjective, often masked by hidden agenda, so irrelevant since other researchers have disagreed.

I said, "side effect." Business policy refers to limiting the size of double book-keeping.

What miners want is irrelevant. Miners job is to work out there own ROI when investing in mining Bitcoin. It is not the job of Bitcoin itself to satisfy miners.

[dinofelis]

What would happen if satoshi logs in to the board and says that he is supporting UASF?

Would that be enough for you to name that minority chain as "bitcoin"?

I feel like we are taking bitcoin to the point of near destruction and just before 3-4 different bitcoins appear, satoshi will make a comeback and settle things once and for all. (I hope he re-sets the rules and removes ASICs all together)

If Satoshi can log in and make things happen, it means that Satoshi is the central authority of bitcoin.
Now, if he has the (moral) right to the name of "bitcoin", why not.

[Carlton Banks]

BU is even more dead than i thought  

Even Roger Ver is part of the coup attempt by miners WITH segwit. BU was a distraction and should be forgotten. It's totally irrelevant to this next round of clashes.

This show that sense is winning

It's more obvious than ever that these corporate nobodies (like Bitpay, Barry Silbert's company and even Bitfury) have been to some extent responsible for the "make blocks too big" agenda all along.

• First, 20 MB blocks, then worry about mitigating the effects later (the GavinCoin BIP101 original)
• Then it was 8MB GavinCoin, quickly revised to 2MB JeffCoin for BIP102
• Thirdly it was BIP100, where the miners were put overtly in charge, lol
• Next it was XT and Classic, that were just BIPs 101 and 102 with a dash of marketing paint on the box
• Then it was Bitcoin Unlimited, where the miners were put covertly in charge, even bigger lol
• Now, Segwit 8MB (2MB + 6MB witness blocks) is the "final" SuitCoin compromise

These people are just desperate. They do nothing but push for too big, and they've had no choice but to come up with increasingly manipulative ways to talk the Bitcoin users into giving them the keys to the kingdom, and accepting the most dangerous blocksize they can spin lies about (the "2MB plus Segwit" being only the latest, which of course really means 8MB Segwit instead of the more sensible, but IMO still dangerous 4MB Segwit)

And all that's happening is that they keep shifting their position closer and closer to Segwit 4MB (which after all is what 68% of the Bitcoin network is ready for)

[dinofelis]

The most important thing in a coin is the software being solid, and Core devs have proven time after time for years, that they are the best in the game.

I wouldn't think so.  The most important thing in a coin is a protocol being solid.  Anyone can write software that implements a protocol.  But designing a protocol that will stand, once and for all, never to be changed, and with all game-theoretical consequences thought out before hand is very difficult.  If the protocol contains flaws, the coin is going to behave differently that its intended behaviour.

The problem in crypto is that one confuses software and protocol.  Anyone can write software to implement a protocol.  But fiddling with a protocol is way, way more subtle.   Thinking that one can define a protocol with just software is foolishness, because that essentially means that one is tied to a single piece of software.  There are many open protocols out there.  SMTP is probably the best known and oldest.  Many software implementations of it exist and that makes SMTP essentially immutable, which is the core idea of a crypto currency.

[ComputerGenie]

...In other words, instead of a difficulty adjustment every 2016 blocks, one should have a difficulty adjustment following Moore's law...

1965 is over and we've about reached the end of Moore's law.  

Absolutely not.   Moore's law is alive and kicking.  But Moore's law is an *economic* law, not a law of raw performance.

The complexity for minimum component costs has increased at a rate of roughly a factor of two per year. Certainly over the short term this rate can be expected to continue, if not to increase. Over the longer term, the rate of increase is a bit more uncertain, although there is no reason to believe it will not remain nearly constant for at least 10 years.

Essentially, he says that the cost of an individual electronic function goes down by a factor of 2 every 1.5 years, and that's exactly what we need for the economic cost of proof of work.

It doesn't mean that the computational power of a laptop will increase by a factor of 2 every 1.5 years ; that could be a manifestation, but it could just as well be that a telephone with same functionality as 1.5 years ago, is half as expensive.

1. It's purely assumptive on your behalf that I said, or implied, anything about "raw performance".
2. He was looking backwards from 1965.
3. He was looking no more forward than 1975.
4. The fact remains that "the manufacturing cost per component [per circuit]" can't continue to halve much more from this point forward.
5. Scale plays into 4 (Bitmain and Canaan aren't Intel).

[The One]

What would happen if satoshi logs in to the board and says that he is supporting UASF?

Would that be enough for you to name that minority chain as "bitcoin"?

I feel like we are taking bitcoin to the point of near destruction and just before 3-4 different bitcoins appear, satoshi will make a comeback and settle things once and for all. (I hope he re-sets the rules and removes ASICs all together)

Why should he. Satoshi isn't god and we all are suppose to fall in line.

At best he can give his opinions of the "civil war."

[mindrust]

What would happen if satoshi logs in to the board and says that he is supporting UASF?

Would that be enough for you to name that minority chain as "bitcoin"?

I feel like we are taking bitcoin to the point of near destruction and just before 3-4 different bitcoins appear, satoshi will make a comeback and settle things once and for all. (I hope he re-sets the rules and removes ASICs all together)

Why should he. Satoshi isn't god and we all are suppose to fall in line.

At best he can give his opinions of the "civil war."

He is already god. You have no idea what would happen if satoshi declares his opinion on these matters. He can settle everything with a word from his mouth. Do you have any idea about the size of a support he can get from the community? You clearly not.

He doesn't have to fiddle with the code. All he has to do is declaring his opinion and everything will get solved in a decentralized fashion.

But BU'ers probably will cry again because they will say it is just unfair to have satoshi, while they got morons like Ver and WU 

[BTCLuke]

I'm 100% certain that only 1 of the 2 of us is all on about Blockstream. 

I'm 100% certain that you can't hear the facts when you plug your ears like that and look for something mundane like the repetition of a company's name to talk about.

Why not try responding to the points given? Afraid that it'll be uncomfortable to learn how wrong you are?

I'm 100% certain that hyperbole and delusions don't bolster anyone's case. 

I'm 100% certain that you're not open to accepting anything factual at all.

[The One]

How large would blocks be under the current segwit plans plus the 2mb block increase plans?

How large would the blockchain grow each year for this implementation of Bitcoin?

I would like to remind everyone the single greatest barrier for someone wishing to participate in our decentralized network is the size of the block chain and the time it takes to download and the bandwidth to continuously sync.

If all you care about is the price of Bitcoin and not its decentralization then you will lose both and deserve neither.  

We should not let accountants, PR heads or sales reps decide whats is best for our network.

Hubris and greed will be our downfall.

++

[The One]

It's nice to know that I'm not the only one that calls it "Twatter".

I call it "twitter for twits"

[BTCLuke]

Adam Back is the biggest mook in the history of crypto.  He was the first person Satoshi emailed and he didn't mine or buy any coins until the price was $1000. True story.

Lol! So your reason for hating on the cypherpunk who wrote Hashcash before Satoshi came along was that he wasn't around for bitcoin's earliest days?

Isn't this EXACTLY what we should expect the real persona behind satoshi to do if he wants to stay anonymous?

Yay! Let's hate on the person most likely to be satoshi because he was missing during Satoshi's appearance!  

lololol....

[The One]

...Thus the actual outcome has changed because of others, not Satoshi. You shouldn't confused the intention, design, desire of Satoshi, with the present developers' desire thus creating a different "actual outcome."...

But they were hand-picked by him with a clear understanding of how to carry out his vision, just ask them and they will tell you. 

I thought Satoshi just picked Gavin. No one else?

[The One]

What would happen if satoshi logs in to the board and says that he is supporting UASF?

Would that be enough for you to name that minority chain as "bitcoin"?

I feel like we are taking bitcoin to the point of near destruction and just before 3-4 different bitcoins appear, satoshi will make a comeback and settle things once and for all. (I hope he re-sets the rules and removes ASICs all together)

Why should he. Satoshi isn't god and we all are suppose to fall in line.

At best he can give his opinions of the "civil war."

He is already god. You have no idea what would happen if satoshi declares his opinion on these matters. He can settle everything with a word from his mouth. Do you have any idea about the size of a support he can get from the community? You clearly not.

He doesn't have to fiddle with the code. All he has to do is declaring his opinion and everything will get solved in a decentralized fashion.

But BU'ers probably will cry again because they will say it is just unfair to have satoshi, while they got morons like Ver and WU

Oh really, just like that.

If Satoshi said Segwit is rubbish and the blocksize should be 10mb, with built in future increases, difficulty retargeting every 3 blocks, current fees are flawed and needs this **** formulae. I expect you will fall in line "everything will get solved in a decentralized fashion."

[ComputerGenie]

I'm 100% certain that only 1 of the 2 of us is all on about Blockstream. 

I'm 100% certain that you can't hear the facts when you plug your ears like that and look for something mundane like the repetition of a company's name to talk about.

Why not try responding to the points given? Afraid that it'll be uncomfortable to learn how wrong you are?

It's impossible to respond because it's only in your head that what you said has anything to do with what I said.
I said they are getting paid.
You went on about some "conspiracy theory" nonsense.
Frankly, I couldn't care less who is paying them (or even why). The fact is that anyone getting paid any amount to do something gives that person a motivation to keep that something relevant. Specifically, in this case, the fact that Core devs get paid is it's own incentive for Core devs to fight to keep Core going.

[ComputerGenie]

...Thus the actual outcome has changed because of others, not Satoshi. You shouldn't confused the intention, design, desire of Satoshi, with the present developers' desire thus creating a different "actual outcome."...

But they were hand-picked by him with a clear understanding of how to carry out his vision, just ask them and they will tell you.  

I thought Satoshi just picked Gavin. No one else?

That was sarcasm, there's just as much "proof" for you to claim that he picked you.  

[mindrust]

Oh really, just like that.

If Satoshi said Segwit is rubbish and the blocksize should be 10mb, with built in future increases, difficulty retargeting every 3 blocks, current fees are flawed and needs this **** formulae. I expect you will fall in line "everything will get solved in a decentralized fashion."

I said people will follow him, but I didn't say we are stupid enough to follow a lunatic. (Some people are apparently -hint: 8mb blocks) People will follow him as long as he makes sense and no matter how much you twist it, you won't change this fact.

[sturle]

So you want a hard fork to destroy bitcoin and it's dominance, and the other arguments you made were just nonsense?

STAHP. Educate yourself. Don't you know that bitcoin has already hard forked several times in its history?

https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0050.mediawiki

Bitcoin didn't split in half - there is still only one bitcoin.

This is different for many reasons.

First of all the immediate fix was a soft fork.  They went back to a chain which every node could validate, instead of having two chains.  One which only new nodes could validate, and one which only old nodes could validate correctly.  Then people could either upgrade or increase the maximum locks for BerkleyDB.  Those who didn't would experience random crashes.

The solution was a bugfix.  Non-upgraded nodes would experience random crashes.

This happened a long time ago when Bitcoin still was young and had very few tech-savvy users.  Upgrading all nodes with a non-controversial bugfix or just increase the maximum locks, was easy.

There was absolutely no risk of anyone losing money by getting on the wrong side of a hard fork.  In fact, there never was a hard fork.  No block has ever been produced on what would be the other side of that fork.

When it becomes absolutely necessary to modify the protocol, sane people work together and get it done. Like when the blocks are totally full, and people have been waiting for years to do a trivial blocksize increase...

We already know it doesn't work like that.  For how long has segwit been ready?  It is still not activated.  Even when it fixes several bugs and weaknesses, in addition to increasing the block size.

When even a soft fork which solve many problems in one go, including the full blocks, proves to be too controversial to activate, then imagine what would happen with a controversial hard fork which only partially relieve one of the problems with no long-term solution.

Even if bitcoin DID split into two chains, one would have more hashpower, and would therefore be more valuable than the other, like Ethereum did. Ehrmagerd, it didn't die!

Hashpower does not make a coin valuable.  People do.  If Bitcoin proves to be changeable by a few people in suits just agreeing to handing themselves a few million coins, it will loose it's value very quickly.

Bitcoin dominance is ending because the blocksize is still too small.

Nah, it is mostly due to it's limitations.  Segwit tries to remove many of those limitations, but a small group of people don't want that top happen.  Larger blocks alone would just add another limitation.  Initial block download won't go any faster with larger blocks, unless something is done to make transaction validation scale at the same time.

[jonald_fyookball]

Adam Back is the biggest mook in the history of crypto.  He was the first person Satoshi emailed and he didn't mine or buy any coins until the price was $1000. True story.

Lol! So your reason for hating on the cypherpunk who wrote Hashcash before Satoshi came along was that he wasn't around for bitcoin's earliest days?

Isn't this EXACTLY what we should expect the real persona behind satoshi to do if he wants to stay anonymous?

Yay! Let's hate on the person most likely to be satoshi because he was missing during Satoshi's appearance!  

lololol....

That's quite a far flung theory.  One reason highly its unlikely is because Blockstream and core devs want to scale bitcoin in the exact opposite way that Satoshi recommended. 

[The One]

...Thus the actual outcome has changed because of others, not Satoshi. You shouldn't confused the intention, design, desire of Satoshi, with the present developers' desire thus creating a different "actual outcome."...

But they were hand-picked by him with a clear understanding of how to carry out his vision, just ask them and they will tell you.  

I thought Satoshi just picked Gavin. No one else?

That was sarcasm, there's just as much "proof" for you to claim that he picked you.  

Equally, i could be the 'picker'.