Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[solex]

I don't know enough about the block size limits really but is increasing it just kicking the can down the road. Can we just keep doing that? A bit like how USA used to keep increasing the debt ceiling

Increasing block size limits is not solution. It is "brute force" ... we are only buying time.  1B people will require 4 GB block size limit.

Maybe 'buying some time' is quite crucial for coming up with and developing the necessary solutions, and it's not 'kicking the can down the road' knowing the issue will never be properly addressed.
Although I don't fully understand the lightning network and its risks/tradeoffs, the presentation slides suggest 133MB blocks would be sufficient for unlimited transactions for 7 billion users. That would be freaking awesome, and solve the scaling problem imho (but again, I don't understand it deeply enough).

EDIT: Inca beat me to it   .

Likewise.
And the lightning network is mostly paperwork today, but could be fully operational in 3 years time. Gavin's can-kick would more than cover that period, without a monumental snafu, PR disaster, price collapse, in the meantime.

[1714196484]

1714196484

[1714196484]

1714196484

[1714196484]

1714196484

[lebing]

Likewise.
And the lightning network is mostly paperwork today, but could be fully operational in 3 years time. Gavin's can-kick would more than cover that period, without a monumental snafu, PR disaster, price collapse, in the meantime.

Agree with you guys. I'm really at a loss over this whole discussion. Not extending the limit at some point in the near future is maybe the worst thing we could do.

That being said, why do you figure it will take 3 years for lightning to be operational?

[cypherdoc]

Likewise.
And the lightning network is mostly paperwork today, but could be fully operational in 3 years time. Gavin's can-kick would more than cover that period, without a monumental snafu, PR disaster, price collapse, in the meantime.

Agree with you guys. I'm really at a loss over this whole discussion. Not extending the limit at some point in the near future is maybe the worst thing we could do.

That being said, why do you figure it will take 3 years for lightning to be operational?

Not being a software engineer, I can only guess. But in the presentations I've listened to, Rusty Russell has said there will be not 1 but 2 soft  forks required to implement lightning. Given Bitcoin's resistance to change it doesn't seem unreasonable that it would take that long even though I agree with you it seems a bit excessive. I'm sure  there  are several other factors as well that prolong the process.

[lebing]

I'm not too worried about the blocksize debate now that I know even Peter Todd supports an increase "eventually." To me this says the first sign of actual delays and price impact will see all these guys change their tune.

i seriously hope that we dont see any delays. That would mean we dragged our feet far too long and now have to rush to clean up the mess. I think its really great that Mike and Gavin are getting out ahead of this change to try and get consensus before it might even be a possibility.

[solex]

Likewise.
And the lightning network is mostly paperwork today, but could be fully operational in 3 years time. Gavin's can-kick would more than cover that period, without a monumental snafu, PR disaster, price collapse, in the meantime.

Agree with you guys. I'm really at a loss over this whole discussion. Not extending the limit at some point in the near future is maybe the worst thing we could do.

That being said, why do you figure it will take 3 years for lightning to be operational?

OK. Complex systems always have unexpected delays, and 3 years is a guesstimate. LN needs to be coded, tested, and installed on a global network of servers, primed with payment nodes (not sure how it bootstraps), and then actually taking a useful tx loading off the main-chain (leaving aside the politics behind soft-forks). This is not a quick task. Perhaps it will surprise and be available sooner.

edit: got the details on the soft-forks:

Note that the scheme requires some solution to malleability to allow chains of transactions to be built (this is a common theme, so likely to be mitigated in a future soft fork), but Gregory Maxwell points out that it also wants selective malleability, so transactions can be replaced without invalidating the HTLCs which are spending their outputs.  Thus it proposes new signature flags, which will require active debate, analysis and another soft fork.

http://rusty.ozlabs.org/?p=477

[cypherdoc]

from gmax's response this morning:

"Thanks Matt; I was actually really confused by this sudden push with
not a word here or on Github--so much so that I responded on Reddit to
people pointing to commits in Gavin's personal repository saying they
were reading too much into it.

So please forgive me for the more than typical disorganization in this
message; I've been caught a bit flatfooted on this and I'm trying to
catch up. I'm juggling a fair amount of sudden pressure in my mailbox,
and trying to navigate complex discussions in about eight different
forums concurrently."

anyone who is even half aware of his surroundings could see that Gavin' proposal was coming.  wasn't i on this thread talking about this immediately after this video last month?:  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIafZXRDH7w

but even way before then it was entirely clear that there was a schism developing btwn Gavin, who has been pushing for an even more radical progressive block size increase, and the rest of the Blockstream devs looking to continue capping at 1MB while at the same time pushing their version of SC's.  it was clear, to me at least, that he would have to pull rank at some point.  and that is not a bad thing; that is what leaders do.  he is the lead dev after all.

gmax is exhibiting typical behavior when someone suddenly finds their back up against the wall defending what clearly is a minority opinion.  "poor me, they suddenly sprung this upon me with absolutely no warning!"

[sidhujag]

dow up 275.. i guess dip is over

[cypherdoc]

i see that alot of the 1MB proponents are attempting to use the excuse of "digital gold as a reserve currency" or as a "settlement currency" to argue for their cap.

as one of the first, if not the first, to have made the conceptual switch from physical gold to what i consider digital gold (Bitcoin), AND act on it, i think i am qualified to comment on this excuse:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=35956.msg443129#msg443129

my argument against leaving the limit at 1MB to guide Bitcoin's future towards being a reserve or settlement currency is that it is too early to claim Bitcoin as a gold substitute.  Bitcoin is unknown by probably greater than 60-70% of the world's population.  those African kids digging gold out of mine shafts 3ft wide and down 100 yds have no idea that something like Bitcoin even exists.  otoh, they obviously know about the value of gold.  i'd argue they even understand why; that it can't be debased by their gvts by legalized counterfeiting.  they also understand that they can hold the metal in their hands.  it's hard, it's physical, they can break it up, it doesn't seem to lose it's value, and they can instantly transact with it with their local peers.  this is possible b/c gold has been around for thousands of years and has had the benefit of time and usage to spread itself along with it's sound money properties to all corners of the Earth.  the hivemind around gold is set, it's mature, it's universal, it's accepted by gvts and central banks; it's a given.

contrast that with Bitcoin that has maybe a couple of hundred thousand dedicated users.  that is not enough.  there are very few of us, mostly those of this in this thread, that understand that Bitcoin is actually a superior form of gold, ie, digital gold.  it can be transmitted across the internet in fractions of a second.  it's supply is harder and more fixed than gold ever can be by the laws of mathematics.  it isn't under threat of further debasement by asteroid mining or ocean gold.  it's more easily transportable and crosses guarded borders seamlessly and effortlessly.  it certainly can replace gold.  but it is too early to make the claim.

b/c Bitcoin is digital, there exists a burden of proof that is higher than just proving mathematically that the supply is fixed.  that involves proving it's worth as a payment network. this is not only b/c Bitcoin has the unique ability to be the best payment network the world has ever seen but also b/c it is necessary to prove it's worth as a gold substitute.  it will do so by proving to be a reliable payment network which will allow BTC units to be disseminated widely to places like Africa.  b/c those kids in Africa can't touch Bitcoin, admire it's color, wear it, transact with it (no smartphones), they will never accept Bitcoin until these things happen:  

1. they first have to be able to access it:  this first challenge is easily foreseeable as long as we let the Bitcoin expand; smartphone penetration is coming.  all data analyses point to this.  as we speak, thousands of miles of fiber optic cable is being laid across Africa.  Benedict Evans of a16z regularly talks about this.  this eventually will solve the problem of these ppl accessing the internet which will make transacting in Bitcoin possible.  actually, as an aside, i was the first i know to have talked publicly about M-Pesa being a great foreseeable example of how Bitcoin could take over Africa.  here is where i first talked about it.  someone correct me if they know of someone else who talked about it earlier than this:

https://bitcoin-forums.net/index.php?topic=6322.20

2. since those kids can't touch or feel Bitcoin, these kids have to be able to use it reliably; no payment delays, no double spending, no loss of tx's in a queue, no loss in value. this is necessary to develop confidence in Bitcoin as a gold substitute.  this is a few years off even with a block size increase.  but Bitcoin won't even get to them with the 1MB cap as this will prevent the worldwide dissemination necessary for this level of confidence to occur.

capping at 1MB will cause unacceptable confirmation delays, lost tx's, loss of revenues, loss of user base, loss of confidence, loss of exchange value, and generalized degradation of Bitcoin.  it will then never reach the status of digital gold we all aspire to.

[cypherdoc]

Boom

[cypherdoc]

can a op_return have a 0 output?  i thought it had to at least spend a satoshi.

[cypherdoc]

can one of you tech guys comment on Peter Todds claim that there was an entire book embedded in the BC a month ago?  how is it done?

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/34uu02/why_increasing_the_max_block_size_is_urgent_gavin/cqystoo?context=3

Single transaction can contain 10 kB of script  => 10 kB of data

so, i'm getting bits and pieces of how this works.

these bloated tx's are confined to p2sh from what i'm told.  it sounds like the 10kB script of data is applicable to each public key involved in the p2sh tx up to a maximum of 10kB, is that right?  that means 10 addresses max.  what if i wanted to include 20 public keys/addresses in a p2sh?

[Odalv]

can one of you tech guys comment on Peter Todds claim that there was an entire book embedded in the BC a month ago?  how is it done?

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/34uu02/why_increasing_the_max_block_size_is_urgent_gavin/cqystoo?context=3

Single transaction can contain 10 kB of script  => 10 kB of data

so, i'm getting bits and pieces of how this works.

these bloated tx's are confined to p2sh from what i'm told.  it sounds like the 10kB script of data is applicable to each public key involved in the p2sh tx up to a maximum of 10kB, is that right?  that means 10 addresses max.  what if i wanted to include 20 public keys/addresses in a p2sh?

Seems, you can insert "value into script" (any data up to 520 bytes).  Looks like there is not size limit for transaction (only block size is the limit). If I understand it right then you can insert 201 * 520 bytes into script for one output.

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Weaknesses

These are protocol rules built to prevent DoS:

    Restricts the block size to 1 megabyte.
    Restricts the maximum number of signature checks a transaction input may request
    Limits the size of each script (up to 10000 bytes)
    Limits the size of each value pushed while evaluating a a script (up to 520 bytes)
    Limits the number of expensive operations in a script (up to 201 operations). All but pushs are considered expensive. Also each key argument of signature checking in multi-signature checking (OP_CHECKMULTISIG) is considered an additional operation.
    Limits the number of key arguments OP_CHECKMULTISIG can use (up to 20 keys)
    Limits the number of the stack elements that can be stored simultaneously (up to 1000 elements, in standard and alt stacks together)
    Limits the number of signature checks a block may request (up to 20000 checks)

These are the Satoshi client protections added in version 0.8.0:

    Transactions greater than 100 Kbytes are considered non-standard (protects from variations of the https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=140078.0 attack).

Edit: only 20 * 520 bytes because of  "Limits the size of each script (up to 10000 bytes)"

[molecular]

I don't know enough about the block size limits really but is increasing it just kicking the can down the road. Can we just keep doing that? A bit like how USA used to keep increasing the debt ceiling

Yes, it's kicking the can down the road. But nothing else is ready and hitting the limit might spell big trouble.

EDIT: sorry, this got already answered 10 times or so. I should read threads from back to front...

[Adrian-x]

can one of you tech guys comment on Peter Todds claim that there was an entire book embedded in the BC a month ago?  how is it done?

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/34uu02/why_increasing_the_max_block_size_is_urgent_gavin/cqystoo?context=3

Single transaction can contain 10 kB of script  => 10 kB of data

Does maxing out that data limit impact the TX fee? Like including many inputs requires a fee.

[Odalv]

can one of you tech guys comment on Peter Todds claim that there was an entire book embedded in the BC a month ago?  how is it done?

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/34uu02/why_increasing_the_max_block_size_is_urgent_gavin/cqystoo?context=3

Single transaction can contain 10 kB of script  => 10 kB of data

Does maxing out that data limit impact the TX fee? Like including many inputs requires a fee.

Yes.

[Adrian-x]

I'm not too worried about the blocksize debate now that I know even Peter Todd supports an increase "eventually." To me this says the first sign of actual delays and price impact will see all these guys change their tune.

I don't think it will change much, lots of resistance is routed in fear of what could happen, also based on subjective assertions.
There are legitimate concerns and efforts should be focused there.

Why we need to change now is to kill the FUD, so developers can work on the real issues.

[cypherdoc]

Limits the size of each value pushed while evaluating a a script (up to 520 bytes)
Limits the number of expensive operations in a script (up to 201 operations). All but pushs are considered expensive.

i need some definitions of the bolded terms:

value means BTC?
expensive means what?
pushs means what in this context?

[cypherdoc]

I'm not too worried about the blocksize debate now that I know even Peter Todd supports an increase "eventually." To me this says the first sign of actual delays and price impact will see all these guys change their tune.

I don't think it will change much, lots of resistance is routed in fear of what could happen, also based on subjective assertions.
There are legitimate concerns and efforts should be focused there.

Why we need to change now is to kill the FUD, so developers can work on the real issues.

i think the thing we all have to be worried about is the extent to which these anti-Gavin types are actually willing to let Bitcoin die.  i hate to consider that but seriously.  if you don't have much invested in the coin or somehow missed the train, or just simply don't believe it is setup properly, would $21M invested in your startup incentivize you to let Bitcoin die in favor of a new blockchain (SC)?  after all, they said in the whitepaper, Bitcoiners may be forced to migrate to a superiorly performing SC.

[Adrian-x]

from gmax's response this morning:

"Thanks Matt; I was actually really confused by this sudden push with
not a word here or on Github--so much so that I responded on Reddit to
people pointing to commits in Gavin's personal repository saying they
were reading too much into it.

So please forgive me for the more than typical disorganization in this
message; I've been caught a bit flatfooted on this and I'm trying to
catch up. I'm juggling a fair amount of sudden pressure in my mailbox,
and trying to navigate complex discussions in about eight different
forums concurrently."

anyone who is even half aware of his surroundings could see that Gavin' proposal was coming.  wasn't i on this thread talking about this immediately after this video last month?:  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIafZXRDH7w

but even way before then it was entirely clear that there was a schism developing btwn Gavin, who has been pushing for an even more radical progressive block size increase, and the rest of the Blockstream devs looking to continue capping at 1MB while at the same time pushing their version of SC's.  it was clear, to me at least, that he would have to pull rank at some point.  and that is not a bad thing; that is what leaders do.  he is the lead dev after all.

gmax is exhibiting typical behavior when someone suddenly finds their back up against the wall defending what clearly is a minority opinion.  "poor me, they suddenly sprung this upon me with absolutely no warning!"

It is a sad thing but as things go good developers stop doing good work and start being average PR managers.
Gmax accuses Gavin of not doing code development and so not taking a lead development role.

The irony is gmax is falling into the same trap, more of his time and energy is going into PR than is going into his strong suite.

Good leader don't manage people, people willingly follow there example.

[Odalv]

Limits the size of each value pushed while evaluating a a script (up to 520 bytes)
Limits the number of expensive operations in a script (up to 201 operations). All but pushs are considered expensive.

i need some definitions of the bolded terms:

value means BTC?
expensive means what?
pushs means what in this context?

1. :-)  value is not BTC.   It is value for script (sequence of bytes)  e.g. "The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks"  http://libbitcoin.dyne.org/doc/blockchain.html.

2. expensive for processor (script evaluator ... uses processor time/resource e.g. memory)

3. "push" is instruction(op_code) in script for processor.