Bitcoin Unlimited vs Net Neutrality

[RealBitcoin]

I apologize for my older posts where I criticized the Bitcoin Dev team:

• https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2016920
• https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1932047.0
• and many other posts where I criticized the Bitcoin Dev team.

First I thought a hardfork should be totally unthinkable in Bitcoin, because the security of the entire cryptocurrency arena hang in the balance. If Bitcoin goes away, all other coins will take a massive hit, even a fatal one. So Bitcoin is the only think that sustains the cryptocurrency paradigm, if something happens to Bitcoin, everyone will be worse off.

So Bitcoin developers should have a huge responsibility, not just for Bitcoin, but for the entire cryptocurrency movement.


Then I started reading into the /r/BTC subreddit where I found certain "conspiracy theories" that I thought at first were real. After all why can't we have an onchain scaling when the average internet speed in 2017 is like 2 mb. I have a 4mb/s internet, it's very very smooth.

So I totally forgot about the responsibility part, and I jumped on the "Unlimited" bandwagon like a moron. I shortsightedly thought the Core team is just there to hinder the progress of Bitcoin. After all a 1 MB block limit is a huge burden to Bitcoin.

Then the fees started growing, and my antagonism towards Core grew as well. I thought they were totally evil people just trying to slow down the progress of Bitcoin, but I totally forgot about the bigger picture.


Then this crash came. And I saw with my own eyes that if BTC goes down 20%, altcoins go down 40%. So everything depends on Bitcoin. Bitcoin is like the glue that holds together all cryptocurrencies, it's the main gateway from fiat into the crypto world. If Bitcoin goes away, the entire movement is devastated.

So I realized what a fool I was for supporting the Unlimited nonsense. It's not about the progress, it's about the risk. The Unlimited client just had a major bug recently, didn't it? And their developers are totally unknown, almost came out from nowhere, with little or no reputation.

How can we trust these people to keep Bitcoin safe? It's not just the 40 billion $ BTC that hangs in the balance, but every other altcoin as well. Ethereum ICO speculators can also say bye bye to their gambling if Bitcoin dies. Everything is devastated if Bitcoin dies.

So Bitcoin is extremely important to survive. It doesn't necessarily have to grow, but it has to survive, that is a must. If you don't like the big fees? No problem just use ETH or DASH or Litecoin. But Bitcoin is not a payment system, it's the reserve cryptocurrency, so it must survive in order to have this movement at all

Otherwise as I said, if you don't like the fees, use another altcoin. Bitcoin is mostly for wealth storage, and there a 5$ fees is not a big deal. A bank also asks people 5-10$ yearly fees for certain services, why can't Bitcoin, when Bitcoin is much more secure...?

But if Bitcoin dies, everything else does. So it's very important for Bitcoin users to be conservatives. We don't need to  have everyone to use BTC, they can use altcoins. If you are worried about african starving kids, then make an altcoin that will help them. Bitcoin will benefit from it too, because most of the value goes through it. But if Bitcoin dies, then the capital is destroyed, and there won't be anything left to use to invest in businesses and projects to help people.

So Bitcoin devs have to stay conservative, it's a situation of life and death to Bitcoin, if you want growth, you will find it in altcoins. Bitcoin is only for survival, not necessarily growth. But if altcoins grow, Bitcoin will too, because it's the gateway to them. So don't worry about Bitcoin, it will have value even if it doesn't scale quickly. But if BTC dies, then everything else dies too. So Bitcoin devs have to be careful!

NET NEUTRALITY

Now if this wasn't enough for people to be convinced that Core is better, then take a look at Net Neutrality:

• https://www.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/6mufka/the_beginning_of_the_end_of_the_open_internet_not/
• https://www.battleforthenet.com/

The free internet as we know it is under attack by greedy corporations. Remember how I said that I have 4 mb/s internet. Well that is only true if the ISP gives it to you.

But if they start throttling the connections, especially for Bitcoin Nodes, then the node count will start to drop drastically.

So if you run a shitty Unlimited client with 8 mb blocks, the ISP can just make sure you will never download that block and process it in time.

The ISP cartels can easily strangle the internet if we don't secure a  Net Neutrality. So go and fight for it, same thing is happening in Europe by the way:
https://www.battleforthenet.com

On the other hand, if Net Neutrality is lost in the USA, then expect 2406 Nodes to be in peril:
https://bitnodes.21.co/



So as you can see small blocks are more important now than ever. If Net Neutrality is lost then big block Bitcoin will be censored and throttled into the Stone Age.

Bitcoin must stay under the radar, not consume too much bandwidth, and stay strong against DDOS. Maybe we can have a block size increase in 5-10 years, when the global bandwidths grow a lot, but we must stay conservative here.

We can't risk Bitcoin to be destroyed, it's too important.


So therefore I support Core and Segwit and UASF now again. Sorry for my past dissent I was confused and the appeal to emotion is too much in /r/BTC subreddit, it clouds your judgement.

• http://www.uasf.co/

But I can now think clearly and rationally and in my opinion the Bitcoin Core path is better.

[franky1]

lesson one
dont read anything on reddit. either r/btc or r/bitcoin.. they both have propaganda

lesson two
4mbit/s vs 8mbyte/10minute are not a battle... 4mbit/s= 300mbyte every 10 minutes
(4mbit=0.5mbyte/sec... * 60 = 30mbyte/min..... *10 = 300mbyte/10min)

lesson three
dynamics is not about "gigabytes by midnight" propaganda. its about the nodes voting for what they find achievable. if they dont like a certain limit, they broadcast it, and pools wont just leap to huge numbers, they will take rational and small incremental steps because they will see what the nodes ar happy with.. not just because of network capability but also to mitigate any risks.. such as the berkeley>leveldb bug core had when they went passed 0.5mb. so pools will dip thier toes in slightly higher incremental amounts each time and see what is capable and safe.

lesson four
and this is done by full network consent . and not any dev team decision/control to jump through hoops. meaning NODES decide what is good for the network based on what NODES know is good for the network. not some dev team with propaganda stats. but real functionality capability.

lesson five
its much like the old rule of 1mb and pools incremented from 0.25 up, over 8 years.. same applies again but with a higher max limit and then incremental adjustments BELOW that. which is not 100% pool deciding. but nodes get to show what is preferable too.

lesson six
imagine it like a 3 legged race.
one half think they should walk at 1mph and the other person jog at 8mph.. <-propaganda
or
they both agree that 8mph is the maximum but agree to start at 2mph and then increase it by x% until they start not being able to stay in sync and then stick at that medium level until they are fitter to try higher jog rate than before.

[hv_]

Lesson seven

Nash Equilibrium
This does always work no matter if you have a hand full of poor players with some Rasp Pis
Or same amount of major industrial players.

If one looks to have a monopoly stage, the entire game implodes.

[RealBitcoin]

lesson one
dont read anything on reddit. either r/btc or r/bitcoin.. they both have propaganda

I did, but I also read other sources, I try to be objective. I see that the Unlimited team is not malicious as others claim to be, they just think that their version is better. I just disagree, that is all.

lesson two
4mbit/s vs 8mbyte/10minute are not a battle... 4mbit/s= 300mbyte every 10 minutes
(4mbit=0.5mbyte/sec... * 60 = 30mbyte/min..... *10 = 300mbyte/10min)

I have 4 mb/s (megabyte as in 1024*1024 bytes)

The global average in the western world is like 1.5 mb or 2 mb.

In the USA the internet is very slow, it's something like 1 mb /s, and the new ISP's like Google Fiber that offer speedy internet..... Well it's Google, should we be surprized about their evil business tactics:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_by_Google




So the Net Neutrality is a real problem. It's not just the blockchain that takes 8mb/ 10 minutes, a node has other bandwidth costs too, it has to communicate with other nodes, and sync. So the bandwidth cost of a full node is already pretty large, with 8mb/s it would be way larger.

And I would easily see ISP's censoring those nodes, especially if the banksters ask them nicely,after all the entire corporate system is tied in.




But even if you ignore Net Neutrality, and the bandwidth problem, which you shouldn't. The hardfork can still be an issue.

You say that a hardfork should only be done with maximum consensus. Ok I agree.

But that consensus might take years to build up, maybe 5-10 years, and by then the bandwidth problem will be solved mostly.

So we might as well just be better off with the status quo for now. So in the meantime we just activate Segwit and remain cautious and conservative.

Being conservative with Bitcoin is the only way to ensure it's safety and stability longterm. If you want low fees, use any altcoin you like, bitcoin is a reserve currency, that has to be handled very delicately.

[CryptosapienZA]

Lesson eight:

Bitcoin Core has already sold us out to bank funded Blockstream. I'm afraid its too late, bitcoin as we know it is gone.

In the end this has always been about power.

[franky1]

Being conservative with Bitcoin is the only way to ensure it's safety and stability longterm. If you want low fees, use any altcoin you like, bitcoin is a reserve currency, that has to be handled very delicately.

lol seems you have sucked into "that mentality"

probably time to get ur dictionary out and read "conservative"
1.adverse to change/innovation
2.favouring free enterprise

meaning hand it to corporations. "just pay more" avoid innovation and let the rich own it

...
also i know that the 300mbyte per average blocktime, which you have capacity for is not just filled with that 1 blocks data. but other data too such as multiple connections and also tx's and other handshaking stuff.. but do the maths and learn 6th degree of separation.

its also worth you realising it wont even be "8mb by midnight". even if the max was 8mb.. it will take months/ years to even get to that level
internet providers have a 5 year plan for fibre and 5g. we are not stuck at 2000 with 0.5mbit internet. we are not stuck at 2009 5mbit internet
.. just do the maths and stop taking reddit scripts for granted

not everyone needs to be a "supernode" of 80+ connections. some can be just have 6-10 connections and still see that 8mb is safe (infact more than 8mb is safe)
4mb is anal, 2mb is super anal, and those wanting to stick with 1mb are super anal constipated

[RealBitcoin]

Being conservative with Bitcoin is the only way to ensure it's safety and stability longterm. If you want low fees, use any altcoin you like, bitcoin is a reserve currency, that has to be handled very delicately.

lol seems you have sucked into "that mentality"

probably time to get ur dictionary out and read "conservative"
1.adverse to change/innovation
2.favouring free enterprise

meaning hand it to corporations. "just pay more" avoid innovation and let the rich own it

...
also i know that the 300mbyte per average blocktime, which you have capacity for is not just filled with that 1 blocks data. but other data too such as multiple connections and also tx's and other handshaking stuff.. but do the maths and learn 6th degree of separation.

its also worth you realising it wont even be "8mb by midnight". even if the max was 8mb.. it will take months/ years to even get to that level
internet providers have a 5 year plan for fibre and 5g. we are not stuck at 2000 with 0.5mbit internet. we are not stuck at 2009 5mbit internet
.. just do the maths and stop taking reddit scripts for granted

not everyone needs to be a "supernode" of 80+ connections. some can be just have 6-10 connections and still see that 8mb is safe (infact more than 8mb is safe)
4mb is anal, 2mb is super anal, and those wanting to stick with 1mb are super anal constipated

I don't mean conservative politically. I mean conservative as in "Adverse to change", which is synonymous to risk-adverse, which is synonymous to "sane".

I mean who in their right minds would want to play cowboy with a 40 billion $ market, do you? So being conservative in a risky financial/tech area is just being sane, that's all.

internet providers have a 5 year plan for fibre and 5g. we are not stuck at 2000 with 0.5mbit internet

You get 5g if they give it to you. You are at their mercy.

Many ISP contracts don't specify the bandwidth, they just give you a maximum bandwidth but that doesn't mean that if you constantly stratch the edge, they won't cut you back.

If they give you like 2 mb/s, then they expect you to use like 0.1mb/s over a month, I mean considering that your PC doesn't run 24/7 and you don't always download porn movies...

So you can download at 2mb/s but you better not do it all the time or they will throttle it back. Don't like it? Too bad, the 20 page contract probably says they can do that somewhere in small print.



Of course you can buy internet in a data package like they do with mobile internet. Ok you get  100 GB / month costs 10$ (something like that), now how much of that resource can you divert to a full node? Well that is already 34560 MB or 34 GB, and that is ignoring the handshakes. Watch a couple youtube videos and movies and it's all gone. Now will a sane person run a Bitcoin node on his paid internet or rather watch videos?

And if it's dedicated, why would anyone other than businesses setup full nodes? Yea we get to the incentive question then. Which I pointed out like 1 year ago, how full nodes are not incentivized, so their count will shrink, especially with 8MB or higher blocks...



So it looks like many people are at the mercy of their ISP. Most ISP prohibit you running servers from home like Google Fiber:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Fiber#Prohibition_of_servers

Many ISP's follow this protocol, so if you are above the radar, they can easily cutuff your internet access, and say that you violated their TOS since you should have applied for a business grade internet package, which costs like 10x more.

This is why I am saying that blocks must stay low and stay under radar. Otherwise expect the full wrath of the ISP cartel.

[CryptosapienZA]

"Blocks should be allowed to get as big as they can get", said Satoshi Nakamoto

As far as I am concerned, the below communication from Satoshi himself, ends the debate. Whoever thinks they are smarter than Satoshi can go build their own blockchain.

Can someone explain to me why there is any debate when Nakamoto himself said:

---------------------
Quote from Mike Hearn:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=149668.msg1596879#msg1596879
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=%22Bitcoin+can+already+scale+much+larger+than+that+with+existing+hardware+for+a+fraction+of+the+cost.%22

Satoshi did plan for Bitcoin to compete with PayPal/Visa in traffic volumes.
The block size limit was a quick safety hack that was always meant to be removed.
In fact, in the very first email he sent me back in April 2009, he said this:

--------------------------------------------------
Email from Satoshi Nakamoto to Mike Hearn:

"Hi Mike,
I'm glad to answer any questions you have. If I get time, I ought to write a FAQ to supplement the paper.
There is only one global chain.

The existing Visa credit card network processes about 15 million Internet purchases per day worldwide. Bitcoin can already scale much larger than that with existing hardware for a fraction of the cost. It never really hits a scale ceiling. If you're interested, I can go over the ways it would cope with extreme size.  By Moore's Law, we can expect hardware speed to be 10 times faster in 5 years and 100 times faster in 10. Even if Bitcoin grows at crazy adoption rates, I think computer speeds will stay ahead of the number of transactions.

I don't anticipate that fees will be needed anytime soon, but if it becomes too burdensome to run a node, it is possible to run a node that only processes transactions that include a transaction fee. The owner of the node would decide the minimum fee they'll accept. Right now, such a node would get nothing, because nobody includes a fee, but if enough nodes did that, then users would get faster acceptance if they include a fee, or slower if they don't. The fee the market would settle on should be minimal. If a node requires a higher fee, that node would be passing up all transactions with lower fees. It could do more volume and probably make more money by processing as many paying transactions as it can. The transition is not controlled by some human in charge of the system though, just individuals reacting on their own to market forces.

Eventually, most nodes may be run by specialists with multiple GPU cards. For now, it's nice that anyone with a PC can play without worrying about what video card they have, and hopefully it'll stay that way for a while. More computers are shipping with fairly decent GPUs these days, so maybe later we'll transition to that."

~ Satoshi Nakamoto
---------------------------------------
Quote:

"Satoshi said back in 2010 that he intended larger block sizes to be phased in with some simple if (height > flag_day) type logic, theymos has linked to the thread before. I think he would be really amazed at how much debate this thing has become. He never attributed much weight to it, it just didn't seem important to him. And yes, obviously, given the massive forum dramas that have resulted it'd have been nice if he had made the size limit floating from the start like he did with difficulty. However, he didn't and now we have to manage the transition."

~ Mike Hearn, on bitcointalk.org, March 07, 2013, 06:15:30 PM

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1347.msg15366#msg15366
bit.ly/1YqiV41

----------------------------------------
Quote from Satoshi:

It can be phased in, like:

if (blocknumber > 115000)
    maxblocksize = largerlimit

It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.  When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade.

~ Satoshi Nakamoto, on bitcointalk.org, October 04, 2010, 07:48:40 PM

----------------------------------------
----------------------------------------
----------------------------------------

So now,

If Satoshi himself "never really gave block size limit much weight"  (he assumed scaling was an obvious need that would happen quickly and easily), why are a group of developers refusing to scale the protocol... while simultaneously creating a tool that will generate massive income by moving transactions off the block chain, and into their exclusive transaction processing system (Lightening Network)?  Is it any wonder they were given nearly $50 million in VC funding when VC's realized they just took over Bitcoin transaction processing?

Is this not blatantly changing the design and purpose Satoshi gave to Bitcoin (to freely scale to massive sizes, to support on-chain transaction needs).  This seems to be of grave concern, no?

-B-

----------------------------------------
----------------------------------------
----------------------------------------