Please do not change MAX_BLOCK_SIZE

[piotr_n]

So, you've pointed out that I derailed the thread into a non-technical discussion, therefore I am a troll, but now you are proposing to get us back to politics?
No thank you. I'm done with you.

[1715009670]

1715009670

[1715009670]

1715009670

[1715009670]

1715009670

[1715009670]

1715009670

[1715009670]

1715009670

[amincd]

It's the legal implication of the technical aspect of Bitcoin that this comes down to, since the topic is censorship, which is a legal response.

[rme]

We need to increase MAX_BLOCK_SIZE, the only questions is When? and How Much?.

When: As soon as possible.
How Much: calculating...

[conv3rsion]

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

Ok, in that sense it's not. I am talking about eventual transactional capacity, not a business model.

Simple question, even if you don't feel that an appeal to authority provides for a valid argument, I respect your work and would like your answer to this. Having worked on the core code, with the understanding and knowledge that you have, do you personally believe that the 1mb limit was intended to remain in place permanently? Regardless of what is decided as optimal now, what do you believe was the original intention?

[piotr_n]

We need to increase MAX_BLOCK_SIZE, the only questions is When? and How Much?.

When: As soon as possible.
How Much: calculating...

these  are some pretty clear thesis.
now prove them, as a scientist should before developing a system to satisfy them.
I'd actually like to see at least one proof that increasing the block size is going to make the bitcoin world anyhow better, from what we have now.

[gglon]

How Much: calculating...

Let me remind you of @kjj idea, which I find interesting:

When we do need to increase the limit, I would propose the following rules:  Block max size increases iff at the time of difficulty change, the sum of the size of the last 2016 blocks is > (1814 * block_max_size).  If size increase is indicated, block_max_size+=(block_max_size>>4).  I'll leave the implications as an exercise for the reader.  1814 and 4 are magic numbers, they could be changed, but I suggest they not be any smaller than specified.

Though I would consider adding some high hard limit too (100MB-1GB)

[justusranvier]

Based on the poll linked above, about half of the people on this forum who are not overtly hostile to Bitcoin have a criteria of success that would not be met if Bitcoin was too widely used.

That seems about right based on the responses in all these threads about MAX_BLOCK_SIZE. For many people it's not whether Bitcoin can or can't scale to be ubiquitous currency, it's that they don't want Bitcoin to become ubiquitous so they work backwards from that desire to make sure it doesn't happen.

[solex]

Based on the poll linked above, about half of the people on this forum who are not overtly hostile to Bitcoin have a criteria of success that would not be met if Bitcoin was too widely used.

That seems about right based on the responses in all these threads about MAX_BLOCK_SIZE. For many people it's not whether Bitcoin can or can't scale to be ubiquitous currency, it's that they don't want Bitcoin to become ubiquitous so they work backwards from that desire to make sure it doesn't happen.

Just looked at that poll, and the results seem very encouraging. Nearly 80% want/expect Bitcoin to be a global success, yet about half that number are realistic that one or more other crypto will have a major market-share. (IMHO, other crypto will stay but have a minor market share).
So the vast majority of Bitcoiners expect it to scale well. JR, I don't read much hidden agenda there...

[piotr_n]

one last time: it doesn't matter what participants of your poll think.
the only thing that should matter in making decisions on how to change the bitcoin protocol, or if it is needed at all, should be the hashing majority.
setting up some meeting on a desert in las Vegas, or wherever, where a bunch of guys who consider themselves the elite of bitcoin decide how to change the protocol, and maybe even (god, I hope not) how to push it through, without the people noticing - shame on you. that's all I have to say

[solex]

I watched Gavin's presentation from the San Jose conference and I learned that it is actually being planed to increase the MAX_BLOCK_SIZE withing new next 10 or 20 months.....

.... how to push it through, without the people noticing - shame on you. that's all I have to say

Are both of these posts from you?

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

one last time: it doesn't matter what participants of your poll think.
the only thing that should matter in making decisions on how to change the bitcoin protocol, or if it is needed at all, should be the hashing majority.

The hashing majority will have another choice. If they don't like the changes, they will not upgrade their clients to new version !
But right now it seems most of people, EXCLUDING YOU is supporting the change.

setting up some meeting on a desert in las Vegas, or wherever, where a bunch of guys who consider themselves the elite of bitcoin decide how to change the protocol, and maybe even (god, I hope not) how to push it through, without the people noticing - shame on you. that's all I have to say

What the hell are you talking about ?
What have you been smoking ?
Where have you been the last 6 months ?

Yes, this issue has been discussed for AT LEAST 6 MONTHS. This is not "some decision done on the desert of LA", dumbass.

Please, stop wasting our time with this pointless discussion. All of your arguments have been proven to be wrong.

[ShadowOfHarbringer]

I watched Gavin's presentation from the San Jose conference and I learned that it is actually being planed to increase the MAX_BLOCK_SIZE withing new next 10 or 20 months.....

.... how to push it through, without the people noticing - shame on you. that's all I have to say

Are both of these posts from you?

Schizophrenia tends to do that.

He probably thinks he is 2 different people simultaneously.

[piotr_n]

I watched Gavin's presentation from the San Jose conference and I learned that it is actually being planed to increase the MAX_BLOCK_SIZE withing new next 10 or 20 months.....

.... how to push it through, without the people noticing - shame on you. that's all I have to say

Are both of these posts from you?

yes. I'm not a kind of person who would start a forum topic to not learn anything from it. though, I believe that for you it might be unusual :-)

[conv3rsion]

I watched Gavin's presentation from the San Jose conference and I learned that it is actually being planed to increase the MAX_BLOCK_SIZE withing new next 10 or 20 months.....

.... how to push it through, without the people noticing - shame on you. that's all I have to say

Are both of these posts from you?

This is the 3rd or 4th time he has done that in this thread.

Obvious troll is obvious. Clicking ignore button now.

[kjj]

How Much: calculating...

Let me remind you of @kjj idea, which I find interesting:

When we do need to increase the limit, I would propose the following rules:  Block max size increases iff at the time of difficulty change, the sum of the size of the last 2016 blocks is > (1814 * block_max_size).  If size increase is indicated, block_max_size+=(block_max_size>>4).  I'll leave the implications as an exercise for the reader.  1814 and 4 are magic numbers, they could be changed, but I suggest they not be any smaller than specified.

Though I would consider adding some high hard limit too (100MB-1GB)

Upon further reflection, I now feel that 1814 is too small of a number.  1915 would be better, possibly even higher.

In regards to all of the talk about banning encryption, I guess no one remembers the 90s any more.  The cypherpunks won that battle in the past.  The genie is out so far now that no one even remembers that there was a lamp before.

[edmundedgar]

In regards to all of the talk about banning encryption, I guess no one remembers the 90s any more.  The cypherpunks won that battle in the past.  The genie is out so far now that no one even remembers that there was a lamp before.

They did indeed, and the way they won it points to how we'll win this one. You build systems that everybody else uses and make them essential to the operation of the economy. Everybody depends on SSH and SSL, you can't censor dissidents without censoring everyone.

Metaphorically, you take the world's payment systems hostage, so that nobody can shoot Bitcoin without shooting something they care about.

Legitimate payments of taxpaying businesses, right there on the blockchain. Loads of them. Every corporation that owns a congressman should want to protect bitcoin. Every organization that mobilizes large numbers of voters should want to protect bitcoin. If someone suggests attacking the network to try to taint coins or cause some other kind of mischief, whether it's by creating regulations or setting up rival government-run nodes, they should get angry phone calls from every donor from Amazon to Walmart, and every charity from the NRA to the Salvation Army.

Bitcoin can do this, as long as we don't break the feature that makes it attractive to the great majority of people out there who will never be libertarians. And that feature is UNBELIEVABLY CHEAP ONLINE PAYMENTS.

[tvbcof]

In regards to all of the talk about banning encryption, I guess no one remembers the 90s any more.  The cypherpunks won that battle in the past.  The genie is out so far now that no one even remembers that there was a lamp before.

They did indeed, and the way they won it points to how we'll win this one. You build systems that everybody else uses and make them essential to the operation of the economy. Everybody depends on SSH and SSL, you can't censor dissidents without censoring everyone.
...

I was involved with the internet in the mid 90's an following some of the cypherpunks work, but was not involved aside from piddling around with early versions of PGP and such.  I've been a politically aware US citizen since that time.

I can tell you that there have been notable shifts in popular opinion and expectations over this 20 year preriod.  There have been even more significant shifts on how the internet is used and viewed.

If you get complacent and think that what the cypherpunks achieved is sufficient to stand in stone forever more, you may very well be in for a rude awakening.  Certainly the Obama admin does not accept that military grade encryption is without a backdoor to assist  our fearless leaders in protecting us is the right path forward (see the EFF story I posted.)

As I mentioned, it is clear that we need SSL and probably SSH for business reasons.  That is NOT the same thing as needing these two to be capable of resisting 'authorized' analysis.  If you are going to stand up and say you don't trust the FBI, NSA, etc, your message is not going to resonate with either the legislative bodies or a healthy percentage of the population who is scared shitless by the 'Christmas bomber.'

[edmundedgar]

If you get complacent and think that what the cypherpunks achieved is sufficient to stand in stone forever more, you may very well be in for a rude awakening.

Who's saying that? I'm certainly not.

What I'm saying is that we should learn from what has been effective so far: It's far easier to protect a technology from regulatory attack, including marginal or dissident uses of that technology, if it's embedded enough in common, lawful, everyday commercial activities to be hard to attack without incurring serious collateral damage.

It follows that if we want to protect Bitcoin from regulatory attack (most plausibly at the fiat exchange end, but also potentially more exotic things like trying to force 51% of miners to taint coins or government subsidizing mining nodes to do that itself) we should be optimizing for fast, massive, widespread commercial adoption. Which means cheap transactions, and lots of them.

[piotr_n]

There is a brilliant article at www.thegenesisblock.com that starts with a quote from the conference.

“I assign a 0% probability that we will continue with the present proof of work function. The present proof of work function is not going to survive the year. Period. If there’s one hard prediction I’m going to make it’s going to be that.” – Dan Kaminsky

I think the above quote wraps up pretty well some concerns that people have been trying to discuss in this topic (though only to meet a wall of silence).

So, what do the elite of bitcoin do seeing that the network's genius design is not going to let them put their dirty hands on the protocol?
They announce plan B: the proof-of-work function must change... and that is also not a discussion!
And why it must change?
Because it's just wrong that one dude (meaning some guy in China who they don't know) has more voting power than they do altogether, while they are supposed to be the bitcoin ruling elite...

Well, let me tell you something, mr Kaminsky.
The one dude at least has done something to build an infrastructure that protects this network from governments, while you were conspiring with a bunch eggheads on how to capture it for yourself using the very means that the network was designed to prevent. And the design is so fine, that it will surely prevent it, so keep dreaming...
Yesterday the one dude turned out to be much smarter than you and there is no reason to assume that he won't be smarter than you tomorrow, so even if you don't value his contribution into the security of the network, at least have a decency to show some respect towards people smarter than you.

You want to change the bitcoin's POW function, and you think that you can just do it, because you have an entitlement to pull patches and tag sources on the github, and the ownership of bitcoin.org domain? 
Be my guest, man - I'll gladly see your disappointment when you smash onto the Satoshi's great wall. Although, I would rather advise you to just stop wasting your time, and if you are not interested in the real bitcoins, better go back to using US dollars already today - that will save you a lot of wasted efforts and further disappointments.

[kjj]

You don't actually know who Dan is, do you?