Bitcoin Forum
July 09, 2020, 12:34:11 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.20.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Poll
Question: Will you support Gavin's new block size limit hard fork of 8MB by January 1, 2016 then doubling every 2 years?
1.  yes
2.  no

Pages: « 1 ... 1197 1198 1199 1200 1201 1202 1203 1204 1205 1206 1207 1208 1209 1210 1211 1212 1213 1214 1215 1216 1217 1218 1219 1220 1221 1222 1223 1224 1225 1226 1227 1228 1229 1230 1231 1232 1233 1234 1235 1236 1237 1238 1239 1240 1241 1242 1243 1244 1245 1246 [1247] 1248 1249 1250 1251 1252 1253 1254 1255 1256 1257 1258 1259 1260 1261 1262 1263 1264 1265 1266 1267 1268 1269 1270 1271 1272 1273 1274 1275 1276 1277 1278 1279 1280 1281 1282 1283 1284 1285 1286 1287 1288 1289 1290 1291 1292 1293 1294 1295 1296 1297 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 2030619 times)
sickpig
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260
Merit: 1007


View Profile
May 28, 2015, 02:17:05 PM
 #24921

Sorry to pose a stupid question: what are the reasons why the limit cannot be raised?

main reasons that opponents to the increase state are:
 
 - centralization
 
 - fees discovery price distortion

 - UTXOs size will increase significantly

 - Tor could not be used anymore

 - other things we don't know yet caused by rising block max size.




Bitcoin is a participatory system which ought to respect the right of self determinism of all of its users - Gregory Maxwell.
1594298051
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1594298051

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1594298051
Reply with quote  #2

1594298051
Report to moderator
AWARD-WINNING
CRYPTO CASINO
ASKGAMBLERS
PLAYERS CHOICE 2019
PROUD
PARTNER OF
1500+
GAMES
2 MIN
CASH-OUTS
24/7
SUPPORT
100s OF
FREE SPINS
PLAY NOW
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1594298051
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1594298051

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1594298051
Reply with quote  #2

1594298051
Report to moderator
rpietila
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1722
Merit: 1013



View Profile
May 28, 2015, 03:14:00 PM
 #24922

Sorry to pose a stupid question: what are the reasons why the limit cannot be raised?

main reasons that opponents to the increase state are:
 
 - centralization
 
 - fees discovery price distortion

 - UTXOs size will increase significantly

 - Tor could not be used anymore

 - other things we don't know yet caused by rising block max size.

Thanks.

Oh ok. I think satoshi indicated that it should be raised, and it's also quite obvious that BTC will not make it to anything more widely used than it is now if it's not raised. Without offchain and centralization. Are there other arguments from the pro-raisers I have missed?

HIM TVA Dragon, AOK-GM, Emperor of the Earth, Creator of the World, King of Crypto Kingdom, Lord of Malla, AOD-GEN, SA-GEN5, Ministry of Plenty (Join NOW!), Professor of Economics and Theology, Ph.D, AM, Chairman, Treasurer, Founder, CEO, 3*MG-2, 82*OHK, NKP, WTF, FFF, etc(x3)
sickpig
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260
Merit: 1007


View Profile
May 28, 2015, 03:50:11 PM
 #24923

Sorry to pose a stupid question: what are the reasons why the limit cannot be raised?

main reasons that opponents to the increase state are:
 
 - centralization
 
 - fees discovery price distortion

 - UTXOs size will increase significantly

 - Tor could not be used anymore

 - other things we don't know yet caused by rising block max size.

Thanks.

Oh ok. I think satoshi indicated that it should be raised, and it's also quite obvious that BTC will not make it to anything more widely used than it is now if it's not raised. Without offchain and centralization. Are there other arguments from the pro-raisers I have missed?

there is another radical view from Justus, see here:

http://bitcoinism.liberty.me/economic-fallacies-and-the-block-size-limit-part-1-scarcity/
http://bitcoinism.liberty.me/economic-fallacies-and-the-block-size-limit-part-2-price-discovery/

to make a long story short: remove the block max size limit completely (b/c it's an artificial scarcity), while at the same time introduce a
price discovery mechanism into full nodes p2p network to determine nodes services prices (e.g. validation, txs relay, ect etc)



Bitcoin is a participatory system which ought to respect the right of self determinism of all of its users - Gregory Maxwell.
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372
Merit: 1000



View Profile
May 28, 2015, 04:02:25 PM
 #24924

Sorry to pose a stupid question: what are the reasons why the limit cannot be raised?
Gavin put it well analysis paralysis, followed by FUD, and the Keynesian notion that a stable monetary system has a constant money velocity.

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002



View Profile
May 28, 2015, 04:05:51 PM
 #24925

continuing bleakness:

Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372
Merit: 1000



View Profile
May 28, 2015, 04:06:23 PM
 #24926

Sorry to pose a stupid question: what are the reasons why the limit cannot be raised?

main reasons that opponents to the increase state are:
 
 - centralization
 
 - fees discovery price distortion

 - UTXOs size will increase significantly

 - Tor could not be used anymore

 - other things we don't know yet caused by rising block max size.



All valid reason to keep developing and not accept the 20MB block proposal as a final solution. To attempt solving those problems buy limiting block size is an expression of a lack of creativity

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002



View Profile
May 28, 2015, 04:19:25 PM
 #24927

Sorry to pose a stupid question: what are the reasons why the limit cannot be raised?

main reasons that opponents to the increase state are:
 
 - centralization
 
 - fees discovery price distortion

 - UTXOs size will increase significantly

 - Tor could not be used anymore

 - other things we don't know yet caused by rising block max size.



All valid reason to keep developing and not accept the 20MB block proposal as a final solution. To attempt solving those problems buy limiting block size is an expression of a lack of creativity

the one i keep hearing getting complained about more so now is the one Ice brought up earlier; UTXO.

i don't get that one.  the UTXO is stored on disk and has a 100MB cache stored in RAM that limits filling it up.  yes, the UTXO set is increasing apparently according to Statoshi, but if it only takes up 100MB, what's the big deal?
sickpig
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260
Merit: 1007


View Profile
May 28, 2015, 04:32:30 PM
 #24928

Sorry to pose a stupid question: what are the reasons why the limit cannot be raised?

main reasons that opponents to the increase state are:
 
 - centralization
 
 - fees discovery price distortion

 - UTXOs size will increase significantly

 - Tor could not be used anymore

 - other things we don't know yet caused by rising block max size.



All valid reason to keep developing and not accept the 20MB block proposal as a final solution. To attempt solving those problems buy limiting block size is an expression of a lack of creativity

I see Gavin proposal as a stimulus to get a proper debate. And infact this proposal got it started. And imo we're somewaht moving towards a compromise. See last gavin email on btc dev mailing list:

http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/34094753/

Bitcoin is a participatory system which ought to respect the right of self determinism of all of its users - Gregory Maxwell.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002



View Profile
May 28, 2015, 04:41:56 PM
Last edit: May 28, 2015, 05:08:34 PM by cypherdoc
 #24929

In Marketing 101, the chicken-and-egg problem is an example of what to NOT do.

Bitcoin already solved the chicken-and-egg problem.  Have you been in a coma since 2011, when Bitcoin obviously started rapidly taking over the world?   Grin

Because the TPTB used their mainstream media to promote it. Not because as you asserted that eventually users learn to become ideological after the discovery and learning about the evils of fiat.

You are delusional if you assert you are where you are today without the mainstream media and the elite promoting Bitcoin (in their usual Good Cop, Bad Cop hegelian methodology where they both restrict and promote simultaneously as they do for drugs).

You are a noob and so can be forgiven/educated on what actually happened:

E-cash had a widespread ideological following since the days of William Gibson and Extropy magazine (1990s).  Unnoticed, it gestated in the cypherpunk lists...

Decades later, Bitcoin first gained mainstream exposure via the Streisand Effect, when some grandstanding banker-whore Senator (Schumer) held a press conference where his intern or grandson loaded Silk Road up on a laptop to give the press some Shock Horror jollies.

Silk Road worked splendidly as an actual Amazon for drugs, to the delight of thousands of 20-30 somethings who ignore any MSM beyond Daily Show, Gawker, and Conde Naste organs like Reddit and Wired (who mostly regurgitated FUD along the lines of 'Is Bitcoin a Ponzi Scheme for Terrorists?')

TPTB and their VC flunkies came late to the party.  As did you.  It was much cooler before all the lamers showed up...   Tongue

you can't call me a noob.  and you probably came after me.

what you're missing is that Bitcoin is money born from the internet, by the internet, and for the internet.  it works on the same principles; it can route around damage.  and a key tenet of it's ability to do that is that it is located widely in different jurisdictions round the globe.  even if the US shutdown the internet, it would survive worldwide and the US would be back groveling in a few days wanting to get back on.  especially after pressure from the financial institutions.  

Bitcoin needs to have the same architecture and be spread worldwide to all corners of the Earth for maximum self preservation.  it can't do that if we hamstring it where it is now with just 1MB.  any idiot can see that.  

you want it to be a SOV.  it has the potential to do that.  but it won't happen if you force all tx's offchain to centralized entities, SC's included, that can shut anyone's acct down.  this requires increasing the block size.  all the core devs "say" they want that but they've been dragging their feet for 3y.

as for digital gold, it won't happen if only 0.001% of the global population ever hears about it, let alone uses it.  an African kid will never accept Bitcoin as digital gold as he can't touch it, feel it, carry it in his pocket, weigh it, or wear it.  thus, he will need to be able to transact with it and be able to analyze that it does in fact not increase in supply.  we know that he will have the tools to do this as fiber optic lines are being laid across Africa as we speak.  $10 Android phones are now available and soon 21 and phone makers look prepared to practically give away mining phones to grab market share.  but they have to be able to transact with Bitcoin in a reliable, cheap manner.  only then will they appreciate Bitcoin as a gold substitute.
Reggie Middleton
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 136
Merit: 100

UltraCoin "Smart" Derivatives: The Future of Money


View Profile WWW
May 28, 2015, 04:43:03 PM
Last edit: May 28, 2015, 04:58:04 PM by Reggie Middleton
 #24930

Quote
Veritaseum uses only bitcoin, and subsists completely on the bitcoin blockchain. It is the only bitcoin wallet system that can trade simple and complex value structures without using non-bitcoin tokens, alt coins, sidechains or alternative blockchains. It can trade the value of over 45,000 tickers in all asset classes, from major exchanges from all around the world. At it’s essence, Veritaseum is a hyper-intelligent Bitcoin wallet “system” that is able to create and interpret smart contracts through the blockchain. It coordinates with an Oracle to gain access to conventional, physical and legacy financial data and information and uses it to price, value, trade and settle OTC, P2P financial instruments - all in BTC.

Quote from: from Reggie Middleton
The Veritaseum platform, using nothing but pure bitcoin with no tokens or alternative internal currencies, moves the value of all that he mentioned plus much more (over 45k tickers), with absolutely no counterparty risk on a fully autonomous basis using smart contracts based solely on bitcoin script

It might be worth pointing out in these two posts.

Post 1 - it uses an Oracle
Post 2 - claims no counterparty risk.

A trusted oracle is a 3rd party.  Is this not a form of counterparty risk?
No, an oracle doesn't represent counterparty risk. If anything it may expose you to execution risk. Counterparty risk is the risk that your counterparty (other side of the trade) reneges or fails to deliver as agreed. That's not possible in our system because we make everyone face the blockchain as a Counterparty via preprogrammed scripts of coin that is used to fully collateralize (and/or overcollateralize) the contracts. At an absolute minimum, each contract is collateralized 100%, after all fees. I'm writing this on my phone so there may be typos.

*Link Removed* : The Future of Money! A "Smart", Zero Trust, Peer to Peer, Decentralized derivative layer on top of Bitcoin!!!
 *Image Removed*
rpietila
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1722
Merit: 1013



View Profile
May 28, 2015, 05:40:09 PM
 #24931

there is another radical view from Justus, see here:

remove the block max size limit completely (b/c it's an artificial scarcity), while at the same time introduce a
price discovery mechanism into full nodes p2p network to determine nodes services prices (e.g. validation, txs relay, ect etc)

I may be wrong on details, but this is afaik already used in Monero. And sounds like a good plan.

HIM TVA Dragon, AOK-GM, Emperor of the Earth, Creator of the World, King of Crypto Kingdom, Lord of Malla, AOD-GEN, SA-GEN5, Ministry of Plenty (Join NOW!), Professor of Economics and Theology, Ph.D, AM, Chairman, Treasurer, Founder, CEO, 3*MG-2, 82*OHK, NKP, WTF, FFF, etc(x3)
sickpig
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260
Merit: 1007


View Profile
May 28, 2015, 05:46:17 PM
 #24932

Sorry to pose a stupid question: what are the reasons why the limit cannot be raised?

main reasons that opponents to the increase state are:
 
 - centralization
 
 - fees discovery price distortion

 - UTXOs size will increase significantly

 - Tor could not be used anymore

 - other things we don't know yet caused by rising block max size.



All valid reason to keep developing and not accept the 20MB block proposal as a final solution. To attempt solving those problems buy limiting block size is an expression of a lack of creativity

the one i keep hearing getting complained about more so now is the one Ice brought up earlier; UTXO.

i don't get that one.  the UTXO is stored on disk and has a 100MB cache stored in RAM that limits filling it up.  yes, the UTXO set is increasing apparently according to Statoshi, but if it only takes up 100MB, what's the big deal?

http://gavinandresen.ninja/utxo-uhoh

Bitcoin is a participatory system which ought to respect the right of self determinism of all of its users - Gregory Maxwell.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002



View Profile
May 28, 2015, 05:57:25 PM
 #24933

Sorry to pose a stupid question: what are the reasons why the limit cannot be raised?

main reasons that opponents to the increase state are:
 
 - centralization
 
 - fees discovery price distortion

 - UTXOs size will increase significantly

 - Tor could not be used anymore

 - other things we don't know yet caused by rising block max size.



All valid reason to keep developing and not accept the 20MB block proposal as a final solution. To attempt solving those problems buy limiting block size is an expression of a lack of creativity

the one i keep hearing getting complained about more so now is the one Ice brought up earlier; UTXO.

i don't get that one.  the UTXO is stored on disk and has a 100MB cache stored in RAM that limits filling it up.  yes, the UTXO set is increasing apparently according to Statoshi, but if it only takes up 100MB, what's the big deal?

http://gavinandresen.ninja/utxo-uhoh

good re-read.  and i'm pretty sure he changed that write-up.  initially, he claimed the entire UTXO was held in RAM but down in the Reddit comments for the thread several ppl pointed out that it was held on disk with a 100MB high speed cache.  so, bottom line, it doesn't necessarily appear that this is a problem except for maybe miners.  given that tx growth won't immediately go to 20MB/block, i think it's safe to say this space problem should be worked out in time.
molecular
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2730
Merit: 1015



View Profile
May 28, 2015, 06:28:41 PM
 #24934

Pretty bold claims from Middleton, but I have tried it and it works, at least in a beta phase, not vapor phase or proof of concept phase, but beta phase.  You can trade all tickers that Cypherdoc mentions on here.  

I still don't understand how the tickers are fed into veritaseum to settle the bets. Can you explain that?

Saying "it works" without understanding how it works is short-sighted.

Twice or thrice I tried to find technical documentation (wading through all the promotional crap) and was stifled, so I assumed it is centralized bullshit.

That's my assumption, too... until it's explained how it works and it works in a way I can trust (which I doubt, but I've been wrong before).

If it's Reggie typing in 50000 tickers every hour then there might be no "counterparty risk", but there's plenty of other risk.

EDIT: I PMed him, maybe he'll show up here and explain. If not, it hardens my assumption.

It works from an end-user standpoint, which is more than I've seen from any other project.  Tickers prices are fed through an oracle, which is centralized.  Also, the code is not open source... yet, which i cant blame them for not wanting all their work to just be copied into another system.  In a nutshell, it appears to be blockchain.info 2.0.  The blockchain.info model has proven to work thus far with zero trust issues, but we will just have to wait for more info to become available. 

Thanks for the info regarding the centralized oracle.

I don't understand your comparison to blockchain.info.

PGP key molecular F9B70769 fingerprint 9CDD C0D3 20F8 279F 6BE0  3F39 FC49 2362 F9B7 0769
molecular
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2730
Merit: 1015



View Profile
May 28, 2015, 06:43:05 PM
 #24935

Pretty bold claims from Middleton, but I have tried it and it works, at least in a beta phase, not vapor phase or proof of concept phase, but beta phase.  You can trade all tickers that Cypherdoc mentions on here.  

I still don't understand how the tickers are fed into veritaseum to settle the bets. Can you explain that?

Saying "it works" without understanding how it works is short-sighted.

Twice or thrice I tried to find technical documentation (wading through all the promotional crap) and was stifled, so I assumed it is centralized bullshit.

That's my assumption, too... until it's explained how it works and it works in a way I can trust (which I doubt, but I've been wrong before).

If it's Reggie typing in 50000 tickers every hour then there might be no "counterparty risk", but there's plenty of other risk.

EDIT: I PMed him, maybe he'll show up here and explain. If not, it hardens my assumption.

See slide 14 here https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1UxB33wp1rCncBtPbuzQbkS1SZg_fjCTNMqu-wZGii-o/pub?start=true&loop=false&delayms=10000&slide=id.g7b8415063_38

Thanks for chipping in! Your other post ("centralized oracle") confirmed my suspicion. I don't share TPTB_need_war's view that that fact makes veritaseum centralized bullshit, though. I suspect it might be a great system. I love the fact that it lives on the bitcoin blockchain and has no other token. I also love that there's no counterparty risk and in addition I'm guessing it ties up some bitcoins in contracts and I do like that, too.

About the "other risk": where is the oracle on your server getting the tickers from? I guess that process should be made transparent at some point so we can at least know how it could be manipulated.

Certainly the incentive is high for some rogue employee somewhere to falsify some ticker feed you're pulling for just long enough for a large bet to be settled in his favor, no? Clearly there's noone capable/willing to fix something like that after the fact.

PGP key molecular F9B70769 fingerprint 9CDD C0D3 20F8 279F 6BE0  3F39 FC49 2362 F9B7 0769
Reggie Middleton
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 136
Merit: 100

UltraCoin "Smart" Derivatives: The Future of Money


View Profile WWW
May 28, 2015, 07:14:08 PM
 #24936

Pretty bold claims from Middleton, but I have tried it and it works, at least in a beta phase, not vapor phase or proof of concept phase, but beta phase.  You can trade all tickers that Cypherdoc mentions on here.  

I still don't understand how the tickers are fed into veritaseum to settle the bets. Can you explain that?

Saying "it works" without understanding how it works is short-sighted.

Twice or thrice I tried to find technical documentation (wading through all the promotional crap) and was stifled, so I assumed it is centralized bullshit.

That's my assumption, too... until it's explained how it works and it works in a way I can trust (which I doubt, but I've been wrong before).

If it's Reggie typing in 50000 tickers every hour then there might be no "counterparty risk", but there's plenty of other risk.

EDIT: I PMed him, maybe he'll show up here and explain. If not, it hardens my assumption.

See slide 14 here https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1UxB33wp1rCncBtPbuzQbkS1SZg_fjCTNMqu-wZGii-o/pub?start=true&loop=false&delayms=10000&slide=id.g7b8415063_38

Thanks for chipping in! Your other post ("centralized oracle") confirmed my suspicion. I don't share TPTB_need_war's view that that fact makes veritaseum centralized bullshit, though. I suspect it might be a great system. I love the fact that it lives on the bitcoin blockchain and has no other token. I also love that there's no counterparty risk and in addition I'm guessing it ties up some bitcoins in contracts and I do like that, too.

About the "other risk": where is the oracle on your server getting the tickers from? I guess that process should be made transparent at some point so we can at least know how it could be manipulated.

Certainly the incentive is high for some rogue employee somewhere to falsify some ticker feed you're pulling for just long enough for a large bet to be settled in his favor, no? Clearly there's noone capable/willing to fix something like that after the fact.


Only the data feed is centralized, everything else is fully distributed, which is better than centralized (reference the first link that I put up which explains this). A decentralized data feed just wouldn't work and it would be taking a step backwards from the current legacy system unless and until we have more activity than the centralized exchanges. Securities data fees are commodity items, and very easy to corroborate, very difficult to get away with in terms of fraud and/or manipulation.
As for someone in my camp manipulating a data feed, he/she would have a hard time doing so (we get them from 3rd parties) and even a harder time concealing it, and even a harder time than that getting away with it (each client plus the server has the ability to audit, although that is not implemented yet). You'd have to somehow change a data feed, hack into 3 disparate systems to inject that false data feed (whose real feed is freely availalble to all) and then hope nobody notices.
As it stands now, I believe our system is safer than the status quo by a long shot.

*Link Removed* : The Future of Money! A "Smart", Zero Trust, Peer to Peer, Decentralized derivative layer on top of Bitcoin!!!
 *Image Removed*
dEBRUYNE
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2044
Merit: 1130


View Profile
May 28, 2015, 07:30:54 PM
 #24937

there is another radical view from Justus, see here:

remove the block max size limit completely (b/c it's an artificial scarcity), while at the same time introduce a
price discovery mechanism into full nodes p2p network to determine nodes services prices (e.g. validation, txs relay, ect etc)

I may be wrong on details, but this is afaik already used in Monero. And sounds like a good plan.

It's a bit different I think, quoting myself here so the experts can make a judgement.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Yes, an actually decent suggestion from Mark Frappacino.

This is already implemented in certain altcoins, for instance the CryptoNote family whereby Monero currently is the biggest (ignore Bytecoin, it had a 80% premine which actually is a danger to anonymity). I personally don't know the details of it, but this is what I could find:

Quote from: pinhead26 (reddit)
I think Cryptonote (Monero) actually adjusts the miner's reward depending on the size of his block, and updates the block size limit like this:

(median of past n blocks, with constant lower-limit) * 2

if I'm reading this correctly:

https://github.com/monero-project/bitmonero/blob/c41d14b2aa3fc883d45299add1cbb8ebbe6c9ed8/src/cryptonote_core/blockchain.cpp#L2230-L2244

Quote from: tacotime (reddit)
Thats correct, our block size is dynamically scaled by the size of the previous blocks with no hard limit for the block size. Its been this way since the launch in early 2014. There is also a dynamic coinbase penalty above a size threshold to prevent people from making too large of blocks, too quickly. Gmaxwell and some of the other bitcore developers argued against such a design, saying that it gave too much power to miners to decide the size of the blocks.


source: http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/35azxk/screw_the_hard_limit_lets_change_the_block_size/cr2phqd
note: Tacotime is one of the 7 core team members of Monero



Privacy matters, use Monero - A true untraceable cryptocurrency
Why Monero matters? http://weuse.cash/2016/03/05/bitcoiners-hedge-your-position/
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2506
Merit: 1160



View Profile
May 28, 2015, 08:15:45 PM
 #24938

to make a long story short: remove the block max size limit completely (b/c it's an artificial scarcity), while at the same time introduce a
price discovery mechanism into full nodes p2p network to determine nodes services prices (e.g. validation, txs relay, ect etc)

Price discovery as commonly described does not work for this because decentralization is a public good. Justus' idea is for clients to connect to multiple peers to express their desire for decentralization but is worthless for the same reason there are dozens of different brands of laundry detergent, breakfast cereal, even chocolate. in the supermarket but only a handful of manufacturers.

But to be realistic, none of the known solutions to this are incredibly good, and at least trying something is probably better than head-in-the-sand. That's what I have supported letting Monero's dynamic block size play out as an experiment, while recognizing problems with it too.

sickpig
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260
Merit: 1007


View Profile
May 28, 2015, 08:44:21 PM
Last edit: May 28, 2015, 09:48:33 PM by sickpig
 #24939

there is another radical view from Justus, see here:

remove the block max size limit completely (b/c it's an artificial scarcity), while at the same time introduce a
price discovery mechanism into full nodes p2p network to determine nodes services prices (e.g. validation, txs relay, ect etc)

I may be wrong on details, but this is afaik already used in Monero. And sounds like a good plan.

It's a bit different I think, quoting myself here so the experts can make a judgement.


I'm far from been an expert, but AFAIU Justus's proposing to remove completely the max block size limit.

His reasoning is based on the fact that block space is a naturally scarce resource and that it should be better
"regulated" by the free market rather than by a "central" authority through the application of production quota.

With "block space price" he meant the cost of adding a tx to a block, that will be computed taking into account
all the needed resources to complete such a task, so: bandwith, storage, etc. etc. involved in being a relay node,
a miner (not hasher) or a full node, you name it.

He then continues arguing that at the moment the bitcoin p2p network lacks of the necessary
price discovery mechanism for such a scarce resource.

To solve the problem this is his proposed solution:


... we need a mechanism via which the nodes can pay each other.
This mechanism exists in Bitcoin now, and it’s called micropayment channels.
Any two nodes can connect and they have this mechanism via which, if they can
agree on who owes what to whom, they can construct a payment and they can
adjust that payment as rapidly as they need to and settle it infrequently on the
Bitcoin block chain.

This free competition in an open market introduced by this will avoid the aforementioned
centralization problem.

ps Justus, sorry for any misinterpretations.

Bitcoin is a participatory system which ought to respect the right of self determinism of all of its users - Gregory Maxwell.
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400
Merit: 1006



View Profile
May 28, 2015, 10:32:25 PM
 #24940

The reason we have to worry about miners producing "too large" blocks is because they don't pay for all the P2P network resources they use (neither do end users).

All the arguments we have about resource consumption are derived from that primary design flaw.

If we fix it, then we won't have to argue any more.
Pages: « 1 ... 1197 1198 1199 1200 1201 1202 1203 1204 1205 1206 1207 1208 1209 1210 1211 1212 1213 1214 1215 1216 1217 1218 1219 1220 1221 1222 1223 1224 1225 1226 1227 1228 1229 1230 1231 1232 1233 1234 1235 1236 1237 1238 1239 1240 1241 1242 1243 1244 1245 1246 [1247] 1248 1249 1250 1251 1252 1253 1254 1255 1256 1257 1258 1259 1260 1261 1262 1263 1264 1265 1266 1267 1268 1269 1270 1271 1272 1273 1274 1275 1276 1277 1278 1279 1280 1281 1282 1283 1284 1285 1286 1287 1288 1289 1290 1291 1292 1293 1294 1295 1296 1297 ... 1558 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!