Please do not change MAX_BLOCK_SIZE

[amincd]

Here is what you need to believe to oppose lifting the 1 MB block limit:

1) That there is a real possibility that all governments in the world will agree to censor BTC nodes, but that they would only stop at BTC nodes, and not all agree to also censor encrypted traffic. I put the possibility of this at less than 0.1 percent, and I don't think many people will put it at much higher.

2) That if 1) does come to be, there is a real possibility that the majority of governments in the world will also all create laws to force bitcoin miners to use their hashing hardware to attack a new fork of Bitcoin that is limited to 1 MB blocks. I put the possibility of this happening at less than 0.001 percent.

There has to be a reasonable chance that both 1) and 2) will happen for it to be the correct decision to cap block sizes at 1 MB right now and there is no way that's the case.

[1715289341]

1715289341

[1715289341]

1715289341

[1715289341]

1715289341

[caveden]

1) That there is a real possibility that all governments in the world will agree to censor BTC nodes, but that they would only stop at BTC nodes, and not all agree to also censor encrypted traffic. I put the possibility of this at less than 0.1 percent, and I don't think many people will put it at much higher.

2) That if 1) does come to be, there is a real possibility that the majority of governments in the world will also all create laws to force bitcoin miners to use their hashing hardware to attack a new fork of Bitcoin that is limited to 1 MB blocks. I put the possibility of this happening at less than 0.001 percent.

Yeah, that's what I was going to say. In the absurd event of Bitcoin being strongly banned everywhere, blocks would naturally become tiny since Bitcoin usage would become quite restrict anyway. Block sizes would be the least of our worries.

[amincd]

They're warning about a scenario where running a Bitcoin node requires a license in every country in the world, where this global government measure doesn't lead to blocks getting tiny, that governments, after taking this measure, aren't willing to take the next step and ban all encrypted traffic, and that the majority of governments make laws forcing miners to use their hashing hardware to attack any 1 MB block limited forked version of Bitcoin.

In this incredibly improbable coincidence of events, then having made the 1 MB block limit permanent now would have been the correct decision.

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

1) That there is a real possibility that all governments in the world will agree to censor BTC nodes, but that they would only stop at BTC nodes, and not all agree to also censor encrypted traffic. I put the possibility of this at less than 0.1 percent, and I don't think many people will put it at much higher.

2) That if 1) does come to be, there is a real possibility that the majority of governments in the world will also all create laws to force bitcoin miners to use their hashing hardware to attack a new fork of Bitcoin that is limited to 1 MB blocks. I put the possibility of this happening at less than 0.001 percent.

Yeah, that's what I was going to say. In the absurd event of Bitcoin being strongly banned everywhere, blocks would naturally become tiny since Bitcoin usage would become quite restrict anyway. Block sizes would be the least of our worries.

+1

Also, banning of ALL ENCRYPTED TRAFFIC by ALL GOVERNMENTS SIMULTANEOUSLY ?

I would say the probability of this is almost astronomically small, like < 0.0000001.

You can't get all governments to agree on probably any topic you want (choose one at random) and piotr_n would like us to believe that all of them will agree on such an important issue ?

[amincd]

Also, banning of ALL ENCRYPTED TRAFFIC by ALL GOVERNMENTS SIMULTANEOUSLY ?

To be fair, their premise is that encrypted traffic wouldn't be banned, so a 1 MB block limited Bitcoin network could operate encrypted, but that all countries in the world would require a license to run a Bitcoin node, so it would only be possible to run an uncensored Bitcoin node if blocks are small enough where they can be encrypted. In this scenario, only a 1 MB block limit could save Bitcoin.

[conv3rsion]

And that will never happen and has never, ever happened in history. So yes, amincd's argument is correct.
The only other thing that can be done technically is shutting down the Internet.

Even then, we're just going to run Mesh networks, powered by the sun if need be.

The cat is out of the bag.

[tvbcof]

Also, banning of ALL ENCRYPTED TRAFFIC by ALL GOVERNMENTS SIMULTANEOUSLY ?

To be fair, their premise is that encrypted traffic wouldn't be banned, so a 1 MB block limited Bitcoin network could operate encrypted, but that all countries in the world would require a license to run a Bitcoin node, so it would only be possible to run an uncensored Bitcoin node if blocks are small enough where they can be encrypted. In this scenario, only a 1 MB block limit could save Bitcoin.

Not true in my case, but I am way out on the edge compared to most people.

Getting rid of encryption on the public internet won't fly.  It is far to critical for security.  What could fly, however, would be only allowing encryption which was 'certified' in some manner.  Namely, in a manner which would provide a back-door which would allow analysis and capture.

I hypothesize that this will go down by having ISP's and network carriers use devices which will be able to detect and block encrypted data which is found to not be 'compliant'.  Or encrypted data which was carrying a payload which is not authorized.  And do so in close enough to real-time so that it could not be argued to be a show-stopper from an economic perspective.  This could explain some of these observations:

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Obama-Set-to-Back-Fines-for-NonCompliant-Wiretapping-ISPs-124163

http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2013/05/nsa-bluffdale/

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/09/government-seeks

If this is true, then yes, there still _may_ be jurisdictions where it is possible to operate and access a high data-rate crypto-currency, but it will be a somewhat dangerous cat and mouse game reserved for specialists to even actually use them much less to operate them.  Actually, the same applies to low data-rate systems as well, but it becomes more practical to operate them in a wider range of places.

If large countries who's leadership most fears their own populations decide to cooperated within their own jurisdictions and put pressure on their smaller vassal states to do the same, it could become for all intents and purposes, impossible to run a viable system at high data rates.  I could imagine such cooperation being of enough mutual interest that I certainly would not rule it out.

Out-of-band communications like 'mesh networks' are not completely without hope, but it is critical to realize that even unmolested they will be WAY less capable, performant, and reliable than anything like what we are used to today.  If they are attacked as subversive, which seems highly likely to me, they may not work at all.

I would not anticipate such a dystopia to be a permanent thing.  People will eventually get fed up and make some changes.  But it could easily persist through a period of economic chaos, and that is exactly when we'd be in the most need of a functional and independent currency solution.

[justusranvier]

Vote: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=226193.0

[conv3rsion]

Vote: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=226193.0

I don't see the option for "a shitty wire replacement service that is expensive to use, impractical for commerce, non-ubiquitous, unwilling to make use of computing advancements, and soon to be replaced by competing technology developed by reasonable people".

[piotr_n]

And I don't see an option for "It will stay in the geeks' mode, because the core devs will betray Satoshi's ideas for a corporation's 40 silvers, while the people's (hashing) power will stand up to them, in order to protect the actual values behind their Bitcoins".

Though, even then, I barely ever participate in polls that have more than a Yes/No answer.

[conv3rsion]

And I don't see an option for "It will stay in the geeks' mode, because the core devs will betray Satoshi's ideas for a corporation's 40 silvers, while the people's (hashing) power will stand up to them, in order to protect the actual values behind their Bitcoins".

Though, even then, I barely ever participate in polls that have more than a Yes/No answer.

Stop misrepresenting Satoshi's ideas. I've read them. I knew what I was signing up for.

Bitcoin is intended to rival Visa and Paypal, not Western Union. Saying a lie over and over again does not make it true.

I want Bitcoin to be widely used. Actually used. I don't give a fuck about running a full node on my watch.

[piotr_n]

Since Satoshi is gone, everybody has a right to interpret his ideas in their own way.
For me, the biggest achievement of Bitcoin is that it managed to get the money out from a control of governments, using P2P decentralization along with the hashing.
Today when I read that the lead developer does not consider decentralization as particularly important and he even does not care about what the miners think of his ideas to change the protocol - for me, it's like betraying Satoshi's ideas.
Though I must honestly add that (unlike Gavin) I did not know the guy, so maybe indeed he wanted to invent a more secure way of doing a visa/paypal transactions...

[jgarzik]

Stop misrepresenting Satoshi's ideas. I've read them. I knew what I was signing up for.

Bitcoin is intended to rival Visa and Paypal, not Western Union. Saying a lie over and over again does not make it true.

No, bitcoin is not intended to rival Visa, and never will be.  Bitcoin has nothing to do with debt (thank goodness).

[amincd]

Also, banning of ALL ENCRYPTED TRAFFIC by ALL GOVERNMENTS SIMULTANEOUSLY ?

To be fair, their premise is that encrypted traffic wouldn't be banned, so a 1 MB block limited Bitcoin network could operate encrypted, but that all countries in the world would require a license to run a Bitcoin node, so it would only be possible to run an uncensored Bitcoin node if blocks are small enough where they can be encrypted. In this scenario, only a 1 MB block limit could save Bitcoin.

Not true in my case, but I am way out on the edge compared to most people.

Getting rid of encryption on the public internet won't fly.  It is far to critical for security.  What could fly, however, would be only allowing encryption which was 'certified' in some manner.  Namely, in a manner which would provide a back-door which would allow analysis and capture.

While it's an interesting topic, it doesn't change any point I made. From my understanding of how encrypted traffic is blocked, whether encrypted traffic is banned, or merely restricted to prevent BTC use, either way, such a global measure would make Bitcoin impossible regardless of what the block size limit is.

My point is that if the unlikely scenario of governments all deciding to require node operators to be licensed came to be, then there would be very little stopping them from taking it a step further and also banning/restricting encrypted traffic. Based on this assumption, I believe it's unlikely that there will ever be a reaction by every government in the world that would affect a large block version of Bitcoin, but not one with small blocks.

And I don't see an option for "It will stay in the geeks' mode, because the core devs will betray Satoshi's ideas for a corporation's 40 silvers, while the people's (hashing) power will stand up to them, in order to protect the actual values behind their Bitcoins".

Though, even then, I barely ever participate in polls that have more than a Yes/No answer.

This is very very dishonest. I have posted quotes from Satoshi in which he states he wanted a high-bandwidth Bitcoin.

You're also once again not responding to my argument for why we have no reason to worry about Bitcoin centralization due to high-bandwidth requirements for running a node:

Regarding centralization: the advantage Bitcoin has is that the blockchain is open source. This significantly reduces the costs of running the transaction database, since there is no need to prevent unauthorized access, no need for backups, no need for 99.99% uptime, and readily available mirrored databases to restore from in case there is a server failure. What this means is that the cost of running a node will never be that high, no matter how many transactions are processed a second, and there will always be many nodes active.

[piotr_n]

This is very very dishonest. I have posted quotes from Satoshi in which he states he wanted a high-bandwidth Bitcoin.

I'm sure 4 years ago I was also thinking that my internet speed would be going up, along with my CPU speed.
But it didn't, so if I was Saotoshi I would likely review that targets now.
And since he is not here anymore, your guessing of whether he'd be voting to increase the block size now, or not, is as good as mine.
And even if he would, his vote only counts as much as he can hash - that's the rules he designed, himself

[amincd]

I'm sure 4 years ago I was also thinking that my internet speed would be going up, along with my CPU speed.
But it didn't, so if I was Saotoshi I would likely review that targets now.

You're making a lot of assumptions to claim Satoshi didn't want a high-bandwidth Bitcoin. This is very dishonest.

And since he is not here anymore, your guessing of whether he'd be voting to increase the block size now, or not, is as good as mine.

Did you just forget that you're the one who brought up what Satoshi wanted?

And I don't see an option for "It will stay in the geeks' mode, because the core devs will betray Satoshi's ideas for a corporation's 40 silvers

[piotr_n]

I'm sure 4 years ago I was also thinking that my internet speed would be going up, along with my CPU speed.
But it didn't, so if I was Saotoshi I would likely review that targets now.

You're making a lot of assumptions to claim Satoshi didn't want a high-bandwidth Bitcoin. This is very dishonest.

I disagree.
IMO it's very honest - it is as much honest, as you want to get from me.
One more level of my honesty up, and I would need to start swearing

[amincd]

I think everyone would agree with me. You're a troll. Mods can you please move this discussion somewhere else? This discussion has long ago stopped being a technical one. Piotr_n ignores technical arguments, lies, and repeats himself.

[piotr_n]

I think everyone would agree with me. You're a troll. Mods can you please move this discussion somewhere else? This discussion has long ago stopped being a technical one. Piotr_n ignores technical arguments, lies, and repeats himself.

You want it technical? No problem.
Please tell, if you know, me how long one EC_verify operation takes on your PC?

[amincd]

I want you to explain how high-bandwidth requirements are going to result in it becoming impossible to run Bitcoin in every country in the world.

This is my post which you still haven't replied to:

Here is what you need to believe to oppose lifting the 1 MB block limit:

1) That there is a real possibility that all governments in the world will agree to censor BTC nodes, but that they would only stop at BTC nodes, and not all agree to also censor encrypted traffic. I put the possibility of this at less than 0.1 percent, and I don't think many people will put it at much higher.

2) That if 1) does come to be, there is a real possibility that the majority of governments in the world will also all create laws to force bitcoin miners to use their hashing hardware to attack a new fork of Bitcoin that is limited to 1 MB blocks. I put the possibility of this happening at less than 0.001 percent.

There has to be a reasonable chance that both 1) and 2) will happen for it to be the correct decision to cap block sizes at 1 MB right now and there is no way that's the case.