How many parties make up 51% of BTC hashpower? Four. Already.
In my haste, I failed to respond to this specific claim of yours. You’re ostensibly referring to pools. There are available protocols for pools that can even enable individual miners in the pool to dictate what goes in the block which they find the winning solution for. Miners can switch from pools at any time.
If you’re instead referring to ASIC vendors, contrary to my expectations more and more fabs are available for ASIC vendors, such as Samsung and Fujitsu recently. And the number of ASIC vendors are also increasing with greater competition. And recently solar power has been as cheap as 1.5 cents per kwh. China has banned Bitcoin mining and an industry insider claims 90% of it has left China. It actually seems that Bitcoin mining is becoming more decentralized, which was surprising.
No, you still have not addressed how the network was not so damaged through the eras of the 250K and 500K soft caps.
Work that puzzle out, then tell me how those episodes were somehow exempt from your so-called fatal flaw.
I will explain below AFAICS there’s no puzzle. You appear to be mixing domain knowledge ineptitude and condescending hubris, which is a recipe for being humiliated and impoverished. I will try to be respectful and friendly despite the fact that you’re (just slightly) abusing me and trampling my effort in the mud like swine, with your what appears to be Dunning-Kruger-ness (?). I don’t go out of my way to be condescending and project lazy, ineptitude as hubris. JJG is an expert at doing that. As has been the case with other Coretards who are offended by facts, JJG misperceives my effort as cocky when in fact it is a humble (and pita, painstaking) attempt to help others. My words do become more sharp-tongued to those who refuse to stop trampling my effort in the mud. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and try to be factual and withhold my sharp tongue this time. Please take this opportunity to be more circumspect and improve your research and domain knowledge before you reply.
How about you tell us what puzzle you think you have worked out? Explain it to us or link us to some document which explains it. Full transparency please, not time-wasting obfuscation, political tactics. You are an engineer. Where is your technological document explaining this?
As I told you before (perhaps in a private communication), I have not studied in great detail all the machinations from that period of Bitcoin’s history. I do remember that Luke Jr. was (and apparently still is) adamant about smaller block sizes. Do you have a document which summarizes in sufficient detail what occurred so I can analyze it?
I did a Google search and found the following:
By default Bitcoin will not created blocks larger than 250kb even though it could do so
without a hard fork. We have now reached this limit. Transactions are stacking up in the memory pool and not getting cleared fast enough.
What this means is, you need to take a decision and do one of these things:
- Start your node with the -blockmaxsize flag set to something higher than 250kb, for example -blockmaxsize=1023000. This will mean you create larger blocks that confirm more transactions. You can also adjust the size of the area in your blocks that is reserved for free transactions with the -blockprioritysize flag.
- Change your nodes code to de-prioritize or ignore transactions you don't care about, for example, Luke-Jr excludes SatoshiDice transactions which makes way for other users.
- Do nothing.
If everyone does nothing, then people will start having to attach higher and higher fees to get into blocks until Bitcoin fees end up being uncompetitive with competing services like PayPal.
If you mine on a pool, ask your pool operator what their policy will be on this, and if you don't like it, switch to a different pool.
I added extra emphasis to the key statement above.
AFAICS, the key point is a hard fork would only have occurred if miners had chosen sizes greater than the 1 MB hard limit that Satoshi had put in immutable “v0.1”.
So AFAICS there’s no “puzzle”. The miners could make any size block they wanted to up to 1 MB and the Satoshi protocol would accept it with no hard fork. Any consensus around which “soft limit” to use was always overhead limited by the 1 MB hard cap limit dictated by Satoshi’s
immutable protocol. Immutable because there was no Schelling point to hard fork the protocol. Hard forks are always worthless compared to (worth less than) the original, immutable Satoshi protocol, because otherwise it would require a Schelling point wherein the majority of wealth decides to sell the original and buy the new. But the problem is what new block size value do we agree on? We will never agree on one value. Thus the choice is between selling the original and buying innumerable competing forks, and thus the “unforgeable costliness” can never be transferred to hard forks.
That is the game theory of proof-of-work. Learn it. Drill it into your mind. It will never change.So Core was worthless because it did not force the Bitcoin wealth to make a decision. It sneakily injected a temporary “soft fork” deception to delay the decision of the wealthy. And of course the Bitcoin wealth have already made their decision about BSV and BCH. Just look at the relative market caps. And no the Bitcoin wealth is never going to sell out and buy BSV. For the reason I explained in the prior paragraph. Get real man. Wake up from the hocus pocus spell that Craig put on you.
And that is a critical distinction from the
inept nonsense in BSV, which either has a) no hard limit, b) has a hard limit that is so high it can drive transaction fee revenue too low, or c) has a centralized protocol hard limit that is periodically raised. The last possibility #c is explicit centralization and the former two #a and #b enable a winner-take-all miner centralization that I explained already in my prior posts. With the adaptive unbounded block sizes limited by miner consensus in #a, a miner with sufficient percent of the network hashrate can (via economics) drive the adaptive consensus block size too large and thus is equivalent to #b. Multiple times upthread I provided
a link which explains the problem with adaptive block sizes in more technological detail.
A block size which is too large as in #b (and what #a degenerates to) can force transaction fees too low, which enables bankrupting the marginal miners until the winner-take-all most efficient miner (or mining oligarchy) totally centralizes mining. I have explained this concept so many times to you over the years in various
bitcointalk.org threads. I have never seen a cogent, correct, detailed rebuttal from you. Why do you continue obfuscating your thoughts by referring to some nebulous “puzzle” that you never specify?
Work that puzzle out, then tell me how those episodes were somehow exempt from your so-called fatal flaw.
Maybe it is time to get coding?
[…]
I'm surprised I need to point out the difference to you.
Character assassination (aka argument via ad hominem) instead of factual discussion, is not cooperation nor a meritocracy. That’s (along with Coretards’ appeal to authority, e.g. when they cite the BitcOn-job, hack Gregory Maxwell) the Dunning-Kruger, political trough tactics and laziness of Coretards such as JJG. I would prefer they tried to argue technological facts without attempting to personalize discussion (i.e. not resorting to the trough of politics), but they’re incapable of doing so and so they force me to judge their character. But I speak factually about them. They do not speak factually about me. They bear false witness and they will reap what they sow. They are not worth a further mention from me. Let JJG carry on with his nonsense in the W.O. thread. It’s reality to him in his corner of “reality”.
Perhaps one could argue that my articulation is not comprehensive enough (even though it is exhausting enough to write what I do write) and that being a suitable justification for why others malign me or trample my effort in the mud. As if it is totally my responsibility to educate every person who thinks they know more about blockchain technology, economics, and game theory than they actually do. Nevertheless I put a lot of effort in, and my antagonists typically flippantly expend the minimum effort into trampling my effort with their ad hominem drivel and do not even try to grok the technological, economic, and game theory issues I have explained.
I understand you may feel slighted when I characterize BSV as inept nonsense. I think I am speaking factually and it is not directed to any person. I even stated in my prior post that I am not against Craig Wright in any personal sense. Also I have tried my best to protect you from scams, and I will admit that I have written to you private (or hinted in public) that I think you (and others) are contemplating potentially ruinous actions (not just on BSV but as you know other topics in private discussions such as not coming out of statism). So maybe this has sowed some minor resentment or maybe not. My intentions were sincere, but I can see where perhaps that is analogous to the judgemental relative who thinks they know what is best. So I should stop that and I will.
OK, I'll now respond to point 1. Your characterization of BSV as having no options for privacy is just false. While it is true that all data on the blockchain is publicly visible is true, this is also true of all other public blockchains. So no, you cannot so castigate BSV for this 'sin' without so castigating BTC, BCH, 0.5.3, etc.
Please provide a link to those privacy options on BSV which are not a hard fork of Bitcoin’s protocol (aka “Satoshi’s Vision”)? I will then proceed to explain why these technologies are insufficient. You seem to forget that I am
something of an autodidact “expert” on anonymity (remember I was the
“Legendary” @Anonymint who was one of the first who pushed for anonymity technology in 2013 for cryptocurrency) and
recently been entirely vindicated about the flaws I alleged in Monero since 2014.
If you are referring to some hard fork of Bitcoin (other than the block size), then you will be merely confirming my anticipation of something that is not Bitcoin and which will be an improvement over Bitcoin for the medium-of-exchange function which Bitcoin was not designed to be.
But more germane, a characteristic shared by public blockchains is that the data wrapped in a tx (negligible in possible size on some blockchains, capacious in others) can be wrapped in encryption before being wrapped in a tx. Such encryption being in complete control of whichever party creates the tx.
What part of—‘encryption’ has as much to do with anonymity
mix sets, as warm-blood has to do with mammals—do you not understand? Yeah encryption is usually needed for form anonymity over the Internet but it is an insufficient condition by itself.
In the context of anonymity that is an ignorant statement. Do I need to explain why? Encryption is not a mix set. You apparently understand nothing about anonymity technology.
Further, where exactly do you see BSV as a bastion of democracy? Nay, it is explicitly a meritocracy.
Your handwaving lack of domain specific technological knowledge apparently induces you to write meaningless statements.
Craig is correct that BSV does not provide both
untraceability and unlinkabiilty. Thus AFAICS his rhetoric about transparency and accountability matches the technological reality of what BSV is. I doubt you will be able to provide a valid technological refutation.
For these reasons, I reject your characterization of BSV as a tool of totalitarianism. At least without discussion of some other vector thereof.
I respect that you are a talented engineer in your domain of specialization (presumably more knowledgeable than me in your engineering specialty). But so far you have convinced me that your blockchain domain knowledge is too weak to have a correct interpretation of the reality you are trying to perceive about BSV. Whereas, I am reasonably confident that my blockchain domain knowledge is far beyond yours. Of course I am open to being corrected by your future reply. This is not an appeal to authority, as I have refuted you with facts, not authority. Rather this is a suggestion to be circumspect about your mistakes so you do not fall in Craig’s woodchipper along with the Maxwelled-Coretards, Fluffy-Monerotards, Vitaklans, Larimereameds, etc..
Craig's rhetoric is rather state-loving*, this is true. However, I have yet to hear him advocate any protocol changes in order to make the blockchain more useful for the state. His rhetoric is descriptive, not prescriptive. So what's your point?
*To put a finer point on it, not so much state-loving as civilization-loving or society-loving, with the state being merely proxy these otherwise nebulous 'collective-pseudo-entities'.
I also deduced the possibility of that finer conceptualization of his stance. I just can’t write everything I think, else it would be a novel. I also expected that sort of retort to my stance that Christians must reject statism and especially I expected that you would precisely be thinking that (I read your mind really no joke). The retort is that if we reject civilization, then we reject prosperity. Note Romans 13 tells us to cooperate with governments that are good. This means we can participate in civilization but we should stand our ground on
unconstitutional income taxes and the God given inalienable right to bear arms (without need for permitting and permission from any State). IOW, we can cooperate with a State that does not demand a Weberian monopoly on violence and which respects private property rights and freedom of religion. But when the State metamorphoses to a Beast the collects income taxes, we are to come out of her the Great Harlot. Every now and then the tree of liberty has to be replenished with the blood of tyrants and believers. Bear in mind who my ancestor was (and he did not even have the warlike Cherokee ancestry I also have from my mother’s side):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Shelby(fmr. Confederate General and Governor of Kentucky)
I’m relieved that I was not there in the South when these SJWs were tearing down the statues of my ancestors. I don’t know if I would have been able to restrain myself.
Kentucky is where the
“shots heard round the world” were first fired. Male readers should listen to this pastor and learn to be a man:
https://youtu.be/zZeBUipC388?t=2381He gets into the story of the battle at Lexington, Kentucky at the following linked juncture in the video:
https://youtu.be/zZeBUipC388?t=3060[True not fake taught in most churches] Christianity is all about cooperation and respect for private property. It is the only philosophy of life that is fully compatible with Libertarianism. Again I explained it in more detail in a recent blog:
https://steemit.com/religion/@anonymint/ethics-of-religion-money-and-bitcoinWe Westerners were nothing before Christianity (and especially the form of it West of the Hajnal line) and we will be nothing again soon as we have departed from the only thing that made us great:
https://steemit.com/philosophy/@anonymint/geographical-cultural-ethos-science-is-dead-part-2I guess the only thing I want to reply to is point 2 about centralization. Yes, megagigaterapetablocks will likely result in fewer fully-validating, non-mining entities. It will also likely result in fewer full-stack mining entities. So what?
Because I already provided a link upthread several times which explains in detail why automatically (e.g. via miner consensus) adaptive block size does not function correct decentralized.
No. As stated earlier (maybe our async communication is just crossing?), you cannot make this claim until you explain how the system persevered through the eras of the soft block size caps.
Done. In this post above.
People keep talking about decentralization as if it is an end in itself. Why? AFAIC, as long as there are no structural barriers to entry by new participants, the network is as decentralized as it need be. If there is no discernible marginal benefit from adding one more participant to the network, then by definition further decentralization is of no benefit.
You ostensibly just do not see holes in his inept designs which will cause them to crash and burn eventually. Centralization is an entire waste of time. Not trustless, not permissionless. Just use Facebook coin then.
Do I understand you to be claiming some difference in centralization force between BSV and BTC or even 0.5.3? If so, you need to explain to me how it is any different. In lieu such explanation, I will simply respond 'bullshit'.
Real, immutable, one-and-only Satoshi v0.5.3 (aka “v0.1”) Bitcoin has an immutable block size. Thus no centralization possible around block size changes. BSV and BCH are and will always be centralized (by politics and eventually even mining if not already) because of not keeping the immutable block size.
How was that not obvious? I have been stating that all along.
And quite frankly, all public blockchains -- to the extent that said blockchain is economically significant -- will centralize thusly - at least with respect to mining. How many parties make up 51% of BTC hashpower? Four. Already.
Nope. I expect something totally new and closer to perfect will arrive on the scene at an opportune time. It will not be Bitcoin, nor any fork of Bitcoin.
Great. Then again, you've been claiming to have the ultimate anonymous decentralized cryptocurrency design for years. Maybe it is time to get coding?
I stated very clearly that I am too ill to code. I do spotty research. I am obviously referring to the possibility that ideas are out there and someone will create the medium-of-exchange coin eventually.
Why do you assume I am talking about myself? Why do you assume I think I have a monopoly on ideas? For example, have I ever claimed to have invented zk-starks?
Trolls character assassinate me, then I respond by pointing out how many times I have been correct about so many technological issues, and so they then assume I am claiming to be so cocky that they think I am thinking I am the only person in the world who could create a decentralized medium-of-exchange cryptocurrency. I have never stated that in public. In fact, I did not start that asinine “Bitcoin killer” thread. The user @thejaytiesto created it and I certainly did not ask him to do it. And recently he honored my request to close the thread to further posts since I can not defend myself there. Remember when that thread was posted, I was incredibly ill given I had gut Tuberculosis and many other ailments and was taking 5000mg a day of very toxic antibiotics that made me extremely, extremely ill. I tried to defend myself in that thread against trolls when I was very, very discombobulated and ill. You guys are so friendly and fair like true Christians. :rolleyes:
Maybe you just want something to exist which does not exist. So maybe you are angry/frustrated with me when I call a spade a spade, because you think I am unfairly villifying a reasonable experiment (as if at least trying is better than doing nothing and only talking) because presumably you want so much for the medium-of-exchange cryptocurrency to exist when it does not exist. So blame it on me by writing something very hurtful like the above. As if you expect that creating such a cryptocurrency can be done overnight. How can one code when they are still doing research? Coding can not start until someone solves all of the flaws in the research. I am not a person who slaps nonsense together in code and then sell garbage to the community so they get scammed, lose their wealth, create nothing of value, and end up in the woodchipper. I have some German ancestry (in addition to Welsh and French-Italian) so I admire quality, not slop.
Besides I will not be launching any altcoin. It is too much for one person to accomplish by themself even if they did have all the research sorted out, and no way that such an altcoin can be launched by a team which is not anonymous.
Readers every altcoin which has a team you can identify is of course never going to be decentralized. If it begins with politics and personalities, then so it will die by them as well.
I suspect some anonymous group will accomplish it eventually. It will likely appear with no fanfair, very spartan matter-of-fact documentation, and when we least expect it such as at the bottom of a cryptowinter when nobody is paying attention.
BSV advocates idolizing governance and law in general, as if some competition amongst nations will rectify human nature in political collectives.
I refer you to my point above. Rhetoric is merely rhetoric. The protocol is what it is. I'm surprised I need to point out the difference to you.
I am not surprised that I have to point out to people that if their premises are flawed, then their dependent character assassination drivel is flawed. Touché.
