Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[tvbcof]

...
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.
...

Couldn't happen to soon.  Hopefully Gavin (who I've suspected for some time as being not much more than Hearn's mouthpiece to the world if not worse) will siphon off a huge count of the lumpenbitcoiners who constitute the main problem in the ecosystem in my humble opinion.

I've sat tight on my stash for well over a year for economic reasons and would be happy to sit tight for another few years until it is widely understood what a smoking crater is at the end of Gavin's plans for Bitcoin.  In the interim I intend to capitalize handsomely.  Or try to.

In looking for Maxwell's stuff on reddit I ran across something supposedly by Gavin (though I have my doubts.)  For one thing, nobody who has any bitcoin in significant quantity should have only just become aware of UTXO issues, and it's beyond absurd to suggest that the 'principle scientist' would.  For two, UTXO has nearly zero to do with block size anyway so the lesson he supposedly drew from it ("That is a very good reason to oppose increasing the maximum block size.") is either hopelessly ignorant or a weasel move to get his bloatcoin system in place when a 'solution' to the 'problem' pops out of the ether.

To expand on my point about UTXO issues, a grand total of one user worldwide could create a problem with UTXO size if they put (a fairly technically trivial) amount of effort into doing so.  Conversely, the UTXO problem could be managed with much or perhaps most of the world's population as users if it were addressed at the system design level.  Satoshi seems to have made some feeble stabs at doing this (which is why there is even such a thing as UTXO) but a proper solution to the problem would pretty much require a dynamic global circulation involving periodic re-issues.  That is, nobody socking their stash into deep storage or if they do wish to do so they pay a tax of some sort upon retrieval.  That would make for a fine system for some use-cases actually.  I (and I presume Maxwell and company) would be happy to see and happy to use such a solution but I would like to see it as a sidechain.

[1714199373]

1714199373

[lebing]

since noone mentioned it yet: https://twitter.com/MagicalTux/status/596622731711352832?s=09

Yes, an actually decent suggestion from Mark Frappacino.

[conv3rsion]

since noone mentioned it yet: https://twitter.com/MagicalTux/status/596622731711352832?s=09

Yes, an actually decent suggestion from Mark Frappacino.

This was closer to Gavin's orginal suggestion too. The (an) algorithm isnt going to be perfect, but its going to be better than repeated hard forks (in that it may or may not require repeated hard forks). I'd prefer something that adjusts so we can have a little more time to as we scale up.

[Odalv]

since noone mentioned it yet: https://twitter.com/MagicalTux/status/596622731711352832?s=09

Yes, an actually decent suggestion from Mark Frappacino.

"max size"  have gone missing

[hdbuck]

since noone mentioned it yet: https://twitter.com/MagicalTux/status/596622731711352832?s=09

Yes, an actually decent suggestion from Mark Frappacino.

always been quite found of this guy.
so why not auto adjust?

[rocks]

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!"

We have an interesting situation here where a majority of developers seem to be against the blocksize increase, but a clear large majority of users seem to support it.

If this is the case, bitcoin will likely go with what the majority of users prefer to do. The devs do not control it.

This is opposite BTW to our FED system. Think of the FED board of directors as the same as bitcoin developers. Only here the FED's BoD are able to assert their views on users against their will.

This blocksize debate demonstrates very clearly how the motivations of those in "charge" are often opposite to the needs of those not in charge. The US has ceased to do what the majority of it's users (the people) have wanted for a while. But Bitcoin is a true democracy, it will ignore it's developers, and follow a clear majority of users.

[Peter R]

^ Here's a chart that shows the historical blocksize growth along with the limits, the "block fullness," and some commentary on how the limits have changed in the past and may change in the future.

Credit to Solex for the 1MBCON Advisory System Status and DeathAndTaxes for digging up the GitHub commits that introduced the blocksize limits.

[cypherdoc]

so why did the /u/blockchain_explorer account get deleted over on Reddit, vigorous 1MB defender?  he first popped up just a coupla days ago after Gavin's proposal?

[cypherdoc]

^ Here's a chart that shows the historical blocksize growth along with the limits, the "block fullness," and some commentary on how the limits have changed in the past and may change in the future.

Credit to Solex for the 1MBCON Advisory System Status and DeathAndTaxes for digging up the GitHub commits that introduced the blocksize limits.

geez, looks to me like we'd have to cut Gavin's adoption time by half to avoid problems.

[cypherdoc]

GBTC volume spiking.  closed @$49.  that's very good.

[cypherdoc]

dow up 275.. i guess dip is over

you're not safe until $DJT goes back up and sets new high which would invalidate the current non-confirmation. in the meantime, it's quite possible for the $DJI to go back up and set a new high but that by itself won't invalidate the non-confirmation.  in fact, that by itself would exacerbate it:

[solex]

^ Here's a chart that shows the historical blocksize growth along with the limits, the "block fullness," and some commentary on how the limits have changed in the past and may change in the future.

Credit to Solex for the 1MBCON Advisory System Status and DeathAndTaxes for digging up the GitHub commits that introduced the blocksize limits.

Wow! Very informative graphic, Peter. This needs to be seen more widely.

20/20 hindsight is always easy, and we can see that three things went wrong.

Satoshi implemented the limit back-to-front i.e. it should have required consensus to renew it, not remove it:
If block-height < 123,456
     max-block-size = 1MB

He disappeared before he could use his authority to modify the change.

He did not expect it to become a sacred cow:

[marcus_of_augustus]

^ Here's a chart that shows the historical blocksize growth along with the limits, the "block fullness," and some commentary on how the limits have changed in the past and may change in the future.

Credit to Solex for the 1MBCON Advisory System Status and DeathAndTaxes for digging up the GitHub commits that introduced the blocksize limits.

Wow! Very informative graphic, Peter. This needs to be seen more widely.

20/20 hindsight is always easy, and we can see that three things went wrong.

Satoshi implemented the limit back-to-front i.e. it should have required consensus to renew it, not remove it:
If block-height < 123,456
     max-block-size = 1MB

He disappeared before he could use his authority to modify the change.

He did not expect it to become a sacred cow:

C'mon that's totally unfair to the majority of developers (again). It is not simply a 'sacred cow' and that totally over-simplifies the problem while casting negative aspersions against most of the developers.

These guys have worked themselves to the point of mental exhaustion in some cases to keep this thing scaling up to handle the transaction growth rate thus far and have made huge advances. They would all simply agree (ya know, a consensus) to raise the limit if it was such an obvious 'fix', it is not and there are no obvious fixes, that is just wishful thinking by the unthinking majority. Raising the limit is the last ditch 'suck it and see' hail mary pass when everything else has been optimised as much as possible ...

If the limit gets raised substantially above the technological improvements growth rate I'll be pulling the vast majority of my investment out because it is not going to be operating like we thought it would, i.e. it won't be a clearing and settlement digital gold network but a paypal2.0, fun internet googlesque reversable, traceable payments network

[thezerg]

But if it can't handle lots of txns it won't be that either.  Limiting txns to 1MB is giving up b4 the match begins.  1mb is too small for even overlay settlement networks. The only way fwd is to put in the higher txn rates now encourage growth and work on scalability.  U need scarcity and intrinsic value to make a currency.  BTC intrinsic value IS its ease of worldwide cheap txns and large network.  Without that its no different than a unique poker chip or an alt coin.

[solex]

C'mon that's totally unfair to the majority of developers (again). It is not simply a 'sacred cow' and that totally over-simplifies the problem while casting negative aspersions against most of the developers.

These guys have worked themselves to the point of mental exhaustion in some cases to keep this thing scaling up to handle the transaction growth rate thus far and have made huge advances. They would all simply agree (ya know, a consensus) to raise the limit if it was such an obvious 'fix', it is not and there are no obvious fixes, that is just wishful thinking by the unthinking majority. Raising the limit is the last ditch 'suck it and see' hail mary pass when everything else has been optimised as much as possible ...

If the limit gets raised substantially above the technological improvements growth rate I'll be pulling the vast majority of my investment out because it is not going to be operating like we thought it would, i.e. it won't be a clearing and settlement digital gold network but a paypal2.0, fun internet googlesque reversable, traceable payments network

You are expanding my criticism of the handling of this 1MB issue to a general criticism of the developers. I have nothing but admiration for what they have done for many years, but if it takes a bit of shock-value to get this one issue dealt with - then it is worth it, because ignoring it could undermine the benefit of years of dev work (by stalling the ecosystem and its network effect).

In August last year I attempted a good case for a 3MB limit, trying to buy time, but even this moderate increase found little favor.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=709970.msg8129058#msg8129058
Since then,  the LN paper* has appeared, and there is even less reason for delay in buying time, because there is a very real chance that a high-volume layer can be built over Bitcoin while keeping main-chain usage to a minimum. Why won't the devs buy a few years?
(I note that ArcticMine who was active in the 1MB debate last year has given up on the argument and moved his investment into Monero. This problem is already forcing people away from Bitcoin and the limit is not yet impinging on user-experience).

I really hate conspiracy theories, and am not quite yet with JR on how there might be ulterior motives behind the scenes. But what else can be done to advance a solution?

*edit: Joseph Poon's and Thaddeus Dryja's paper

[marcus_of_augustus]

BTC intrinsic value IS its ease of worldwide cheap txns and large network.

Wrong, you could get that with Ripple. The utility value of bitcoin is decentralised, irreversible, permissionless settlement and clearing, (trust no-one consensus) ... like SWIFT but better. Bitcoin will get more valuable the less people can use it but want to, like any desirable scarce resource commodity. The demand already exists and the miner's are providing the secure commodity.

The days of people writing graffitti and spam into the blockchain ending will be the evidence that it is finally useful only as a monetary network, not some kind of toy ... who would use SWIFT to message banal profanities?

[smooth]

These guys have worked themselves to the point of mental exhaustion in some cases to keep this thing scaling up to handle the transaction growth rate thus far and have made huge advances. They would all simply agree (ya know, a consensus) to raise the limit if it was such an obvious 'fix', it is not and there are no obvious fixes, that is just wishful thinking by the unthinking majority. Raising the limit is the last ditch 'suck it and see' hail mary pass when everything else has been optimised as much as possible ...

If the limit gets raised substantially above the technological improvements growth rate I'll be pulling the vast majority of my investment out because it is not going to be operating like we thought it would, i.e. it won't be a clearing and settlement digital gold network but a paypal2.0, fun internet googlesque reversable, traceable payments network

You are doing the same thing you are accusing others of doing. There is no consensus or even an easy answer, whether Bitcoin should be a "clearing and settlement digital gold network" or a "payments network" (I don't think too many want it to be reversible and traceable but you are injecting that as a form of commentary). If there were an easy answer, it would already be accepted as consensus, but there isn't and it isn't.

[marcus_of_augustus]

These guys have worked themselves to the point of mental exhaustion in some cases to keep this thing scaling up to handle the transaction growth rate thus far and have made huge advances. They would all simply agree (ya know, a consensus) to raise the limit if it was such an obvious 'fix', it is not and there are no obvious fixes, that is just wishful thinking by the unthinking majority. Raising the limit is the last ditch 'suck it and see' hail mary pass when everything else has been optimised as much as possible ...

If the limit gets raised substantially above the technological improvements growth rate I'll be pulling the vast majority of my investment out because it is not going to be operating like we thought it would, i.e. it won't be a clearing and settlement digital gold network but a paypal2.0, fun internet googlesque reversable, traceable payments network

You are doing the same thing you are accusing others of doing. There is no consensus or even an easy answer, whether Bitcoin should be a "clearing and settlement digital gold network" or a "payments network" (I don't think too many want it to be reversible and traceable but you are injecting that as a form of commentary). If there were an easy answer, it would already be accepted as consensus, but there isn't and it isn't.

Implicitly,

decentralised => clearing and settlement digital gold network

centralised => reversable, traceable payments network

(without thinking that is not well-known by now).

[smooth]

These guys have worked themselves to the point of mental exhaustion in some cases to keep this thing scaling up to handle the transaction growth rate thus far and have made huge advances. They would all simply agree (ya know, a consensus) to raise the limit if it was such an obvious 'fix', it is not and there are no obvious fixes, that is just wishful thinking by the unthinking majority. Raising the limit is the last ditch 'suck it and see' hail mary pass when everything else has been optimised as much as possible ...

If the limit gets raised substantially above the technological improvements growth rate I'll be pulling the vast majority of my investment out because it is not going to be operating like we thought it would, i.e. it won't be a clearing and settlement digital gold network but a paypal2.0, fun internet googlesque reversable, traceable payments network

You are doing the same thing you are accusing others of doing. There is no consensus or even an easy answer, whether Bitcoin should be a "clearing and settlement digital gold network" or a "payments network" (I don't think too many want it to be reversible and traceable but you are injecting that as a form of commentary). If there were an easy answer, it would already be accepted as consensus, but there isn't and it isn't.

Implicitly,

decentralised => clearing and settlement digital gold network

centralised => reversable, traceable payments network

(without thinking that is not well-known by now).

Yes of course, but there is no consensus that bitcoin is supposed to be a clearing and settlement network and not a decentralized payments network. You are assuming that combination is impossible. Some people agree with you, some don't.

[cypherdoc]

from gmax:

"So far the mining ecosystem has become incredibly centralized over time."

i totally disagree.  the trend has been back towards decentralization since ghash and ghash has been punished accordingly by the market down to a measly 3.6%.  what i see in this graph is a normal, expected distribution gradient from large to small share.  btw, gmax has been complaining about mining centralization since at least 2012 but yet here we are.  why do we accept his arguments on this when there hasn't been one major incident of a 51% attack?: