Bitcoin Forum
December 05, 2016, 12:32:50 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
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 ... 1319 1320 1321 1322 1323 1324 1325 1326 1327 1328 1329 1330 1331 1332 1333 1334 1335 1336 1337 1338 1339 1340 1341 1342 1343 1344 1345 1346 1347 1348 1349 1350 1351 1352 1353 1354 1355 1356 1357 1358 1359 1360 1361 1362 1363 1364 1365 1366 1367 1368 [1369] 1370 1371 1372 1373 1374 1375 1376 1377 1378 1379 1380 1381 1382 1383 1384 1385 1386 1387 1388 1389 1390 1391 1392 1393 1394 1395 1396 1397 1398 1399 1400 1401 1402 1403 1404 1405 1406 1407 1408 1409 1410 1411 1412 1413 1414 1415 1416 1417 1418 1419 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1804345 times)
thezerg
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


View Profile
June 24, 2015, 05:15:21 PM
 #27361

yes the voting has issues.  

The biggest issue is the role the block size cap should have in the network.  

Satoshi, Gavin, et al. see it as a "sanity check".  In software this is essentially an exceptional condition -- a value that the system should *never* exceed.  In this perspective, miners can individually produce smaller blocks (regardless of pending txn count) so why create a mechanism that essentially forces a cartel (collective behavior)?  The only reason would be to maximize miner profitability by manipulating the supply curve.  Closely tracking evolving network and disk capacity is not necessary for a "sanity check" because most miners will simply start mining smaller blocks (than the limit) if network and disk stop following moore's law.

Others want the max block size to be an entity that can be used to actively manage the network.  Presumably if miners are noticing a lot of "spam", but a "misbehaving" miner is mining it, they could vote to reduce block capacity to eliminate this spam.  Also, voting lets the limit more closely track the evolution of network and disk capacity.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1480897970
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480897970

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480897970
Reply with quote  #2

1480897970
Report to moderator
Zangelbert Bingledack
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1022


View Profile
June 24, 2015, 05:37:57 PM
 #27362

Is it meant to be humorous that voting is described as arbitrary when compared to a single person picking a number out of his head?

A single person picking a number out of their head is voting, because all the person can do is make a suggestion. Every suggestion is voted on, by investors.

Superimposing a second voting mechanism, and more complexity with it, seems redundant. That is, unless you think "hard forks are dangerous." I say, get comfortable with the fork, make it so that it is easy to do with predictable results, and then use it whenever necessary. Whatever its dangers may be, the dynamics of that voting mechanism are far superior.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 24, 2015, 05:43:34 PM
 #27363

yes the voting has issues.  

The biggest issue is the role the block size cap should have in the network.  

Satoshi, Gavin, et al. see it as a "sanity check".  In software this is essentially an exceptional condition -- a value that the system should *never* exceed.  In this perspective, miners can individually produce smaller blocks (regardless of pending txn count) so why create a mechanism that essentially forces a cartel (collective behavior)?  The only reason would be to maximize miner profitability by manipulating the supply curve.  Closely tracking evolving network and disk capacity is not necessary for a "sanity check" because most miners will simply start mining smaller blocks (than the limit) if network and disk stop following moore's law.

Others want the max block size to be an entity that can be used to actively manage the network.  Presumably if miners are noticing a lot of "spam", but a "misbehaving" miner is mining it, they could vote to reduce block capacity to eliminate this spam.  Also, voting lets the limit more closely track the evolution of network and disk capacity.

Let's assume a spam attacking misbehaving miner ala the large miner, large block attack against small miners that was initially a huge FUD advanced by Wiulle and others that you don't hear anything about anymore. Simple defense, just mine a 0 TX header only block during the time of your large block processing. This is the practical defense that Wang Chun told us they do and that we've witnessed they do during stress tests. And this defense can be done  irrespective of whether as a miner you are connected to Corallo's relay network or not which those Fudsters love to go on about.

Point being miners can and should be encouraged to track TX's and fees and construct blocks appropriately based on their own internal metrics and profitability. Core devs can't possibly do this.

Yes, you could accuse Gavin of trying to be a one man predictor for network growth at this point but his proposal is based on sound growth projections with the larger point being that he is trying to automate out as much human intervention, voting manipulation  and need for future forks as much as  possible.

thezerg
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


View Profile
June 24, 2015, 05:49:20 PM
 #27364

yes the voting has issues.  

The biggest issue is the role the block size cap should have in the network.  

Satoshi, Gavin, et al. see it as a "sanity check".  In software this is essentially an exceptional condition -- a value that the system should *never* exceed.  In this perspective, miners can individually produce smaller blocks (regardless of pending txn count) so why create a mechanism that essentially forces a cartel (collective behavior)?  The only reason would be to maximize miner profitability by manipulating the supply curve.  Closely tracking evolving network and disk capacity is not necessary for a "sanity check" because most miners will simply start mining smaller blocks (than the limit) if network and disk stop following moore's law.

Others want the max block size to be an entity that can be used to actively manage the network.  Presumably if miners are noticing a lot of "spam", but a "misbehaving" miner is mining it, they could vote to reduce block capacity to eliminate this spam.  Also, voting lets the limit more closely track the evolution of network and disk capacity.

Let's assume a spam attacking misbehaving miner ala the large miner, large block attack against small miners that was initially a huge FUD advanced by Wiulle and others that you don't hear anything about anymore. Simple defense, just mine a 0 TX header only block during the time of your large block processing. This is the practical defense that Wang Chun told us they do and that we've witnessed they do during stress tests. And this defense can be done  irrespective of whether as a miner you are connected to Corallo's relay network or not which those Fudsters love to go on about.

Point being miners can and should be encouraged to track TX's and fees and construct blocks appropriately based on their own internal metrics and profitability. Cite devs can't possibly do this.

Yes, you could accuse Gavin of trying to be a one man predictor for network growth at this point but his proposal is based on sound growth projections with the larger point being that he is trying to automate out as much human intervention and need for future forks as much as  possible.

Miners are

yes the key thing to understand is that he's not trying to hit a bullseye here.  It is not necessary.  He is just trying to define an extreme condition to let coders allocate memory, size embedded hardware, etc based on these maximums.  Individual miners are welcome to mine smaller blocks.
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1974


View Profile
June 24, 2015, 06:21:37 PM
 #27365

I'm less interested in rushing the hard fork than I was, now that it seems less likely that Bitcoin breaks due to full blocks.

I sent transactions Monday during the test, I just picked some older outputs from the bottom of the wallet, and they confirmed after 1 block.

The full block 'problem' was overplayed for propaganda reasons.  It's the same principle as making loud noises to get a herd of animals to do what you want them to do.

Someone made some graph with his guess at simplistic future predictions which did not (because they can not) make any allowance for future developments.  His genius was to put pretty colors on it which were even more arbitrary.  Since people like shiny and colorful things (a throw-back to our simian ancestry where identifying ripe fruit was important) it was a wildly successful bit of propaganda with many observers.  That does not make it particularly meaningful in reality though.

In point of fact there is a large mostly synthetic utilization of transaction availability even at the 1MB derived rate.  This from people who would not be there if it were not for the fact that BTC transactions are subsidized to the level of being nearly free.  Sloughing off these freeloaders will not threaten the system at all and may be helpful.  This would buy us at least a lot of time.  If/When an actual problem with capacity occurs everyone that I know of (except perhaps MP) is perfectly amenable to increasing capacity through simplistic block size increase methods.  In that case, unlike today, it will be much more easy to gain the 'consensus' that Bitcoin needs.


tvbcof
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1974


View Profile
June 24, 2015, 06:49:16 PM
 #27366

(sorry for the OT)

if memory serves somewhere in the last few dozens of pages there was a debate
involving climate change,  I've just found this interesting article titled
"What's really warming the world"

http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/


There are other threads on this topic here already.  Why pollute this one?  Wink

You're absolutely right.

Again sorry for being off topic.

Just for reference, those of us who's interests include the global climate change issue/scam (if they have a range of interests at all) have a lot of fun on another epic thread here:  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=374873.0  All are welcome and a lot of scammer minions have fallen.  Most of the time it only takes a few days.


polyclef
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 9


View Profile
June 24, 2015, 07:09:45 PM
 #27367

No. No hostile forks.
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
June 24, 2015, 07:20:13 PM
 #27368

No. No hostile forks.
if 75% of the network wants to go with large blocks and 25% want to force smaller blocks, which fork is the hostile one?
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1974


View Profile
June 24, 2015, 07:45:32 PM
 #27369

No. No hostile forks.
if 75% of the network wants to go with large blocks and 25% want to force smaller blocks, which fork is the hostile one?

I suppose by that argument the Russian revolution (to use one of countless examples)  was, by definition, not a 'hostile' fork since it was democratic.

In any conflict, once the first shot is fired all involved parties are are appropriately labeled 'belligerents'.  As to who 'started it', that is left to the history books and these are, as they say, 'written by the victors.'


justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
June 24, 2015, 08:25:16 PM
 #27370

I suppose by that argument the Russian revolution (to use one of countless examples)  was, by definition, not a 'hostile' fork since it was democratic.

In any conflict, once the first shot is fired all involved parties are are appropriately labeled 'belligerents'.  As to who 'started it', that is left to the history books and these are, as they say, 'written by the victors.'
The fundemental error here is failing to recognize the voluntary nature of currency adoption.

Gavin proposed a change to Bitcoin that users are free to accept or decline.

That some developers interpreted this as a threat and turned it into a battle only shows the weakness of their position.

The proper response would have been to convince people to not choose the change by explaning why they would be better of by doing so.

Instead, they acted with outrage over the idea that somebody proposed something without their permission and was doing a better job of convincing people that they'd benefit from his proposal instead of theirs.

This is not a sustainable position for them. Money is only as valuable as there are other people willing to accept it, and nobody is in a position to force anybody to accept Bitcoin.

People who act on the expectation that their opinions are right by default because they were there first and so aren't subject to continual validation in the marketplace of ideas are going to end up losing everything.
Zangelbert Bingledack
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1022


View Profile
June 24, 2015, 08:30:41 PM
 #27371

If/When an actual problem with capacity occurs everyone that I know of (except perhaps MP) is perfectly amenable to increasing capacity through simplistic block size increase methods.  In that case, unlike today, it will be much more easy to gain the 'consensus' that Bitcoin needs.

If so, then people can all take a chill pill and stop with the scaremongering on both sides. We're probably a lot closer to consensus than we think if the FUD is all cleared away.

I expect we are far from 1MB being stifling, as long as the fee market works properly, and conversely I also suspect that the cap isn't really needed at all. But for the sake of conservatism and consensus, we should just keep moving up the cap modestly so that it stays similar to its usual position well above where it would be actually functioning as much of a cap. If problems arise on either the "fees too high" or "blocks too big" (or "spammers just use up all the extra space") side, we can make the necessary adjustments by either increasing the cap or getting the fee market working better. If we get both problems, we'll actually be in a double pinch and have to innovate our way out, but I don't think we're anywhere close to that even being a possibility yet.

The debate now, assuming the FUD is wiped away, seems to come down to, "Is it better to hit too-high fees first, or too-big blocks first?" I can see the argument from an optimization perspective that too-high fees is smoother and results in more economization and innovation, but on the other hand if it starts to hinder adoption that would be self-defeating and could even reduce decentralization because people who otherwise would have adopted and run full nodes will turn away.

I think from looking at how everyone is acting and reacting in this debate that it is clear people's opinions (even of most devs) will generally move away from any pain that develops, so I see no danger of Bitcoin being "stuck" or stonewalled into a position that is painful for anyone, at least until we get to the "double pinch" scenario above, where both full blocks and high fees are a problem, but again that should be way far in the future, where we really can likely rely on things like Lightning Network and whatever other alien tech exists then.

TL;DR: Not worried.
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
June 24, 2015, 08:35:18 PM
 #27372

I suppose by that argument the Russian revolution (to use one of countless examples)  was, by definition, not a 'hostile' fork since it was democratic.

In any conflict, once the first shot is fired all involved parties are are appropriately labeled 'belligerents'.  As to who 'started it', that is left to the history books and these are, as they say, 'written by the victors.'
The fundemental error here is failing to recognize the voluntary nature of currency adoption.

Gavin proposed a change to Bitcoin that users are free to accept or decline.

That some developers interpreted this as a threat and turned it into a battle only shows the weakness of their position.

The proper response would have been to convince people to not choose the change by explaning why they would be better of by doing so.

Instead, they acted with outrage over the idea that somebody proposed something without their permission and was doing a better job of convincing people that they'd benefit from his proposal instead of theirs.

This is not a sustainable position for them. Money is only as valuable as there are other people willing to accept it, and nobody is in a position to force anybody to accept Bitcoin.

People who act on the expectation that their opinions are right by default because they were there first and so aren't subject to continual validation in the marketplace of ideas are going to end up losing everything.

Maybe it would be fine if 8 GB block-size supporters spin-of their own XT-coin sidechain.  :-) (My advice is to use 2wp so you can go back later.)
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 24, 2015, 08:40:36 PM
 #27373

I'm more of the opinion that Bitcoin will succeed, provided that it does not fail, and that a misstep can easily be worse than doing nothing.
Intelligent people may disagree with this.

The question is, what more qualifies as "doing nothing":

  • Letting Bitcoin operate with constantly full blocks, which has never been done before, or
  • Continuing to let Bitcoin operate with non-full blocks, effectively uncapped,* as it always has

   ?


*Of course a large part of the debate is over whether the current hard cap is actually doing anything. So the appeal to conservatism implied by "doing nothing" just pushes the question back.

Your question presumes omniscience thus it is not falsifiable. Junk science.

For example, it may be the case that the vulture capital is waiting for the exponential block size scaling before they unload the masses into Bitcoin via Paypal, Coinbase, Circle, Facebook, 21 Inc, etc.. With the intent of forcing out ephemeral miners and achieving distributed centralization and KYC regulation every where.

Actually that outcome is the one I think is nearly assured no matter which direction we go, because one could speculate that they've also invested in pegged side chains as an alternative where those entities can push the masses into a side chain which extracts the BTC value out of Core, and then they cut loose the hashrate on Core (and any other merged mind side chains) and send it off into nowhere, nowhere land.

Then again, I am onto their plans and working on the antidote.

tvbcof
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1974


View Profile
June 24, 2015, 08:44:41 PM
 #27374


Maybe it would be fine if 8 GB block-size supporters spin-of their own XT-coin sidechain.  :-) (My advice is to use 2wp so you can go back later.)

I would totally use XT as a sidechain, and may even support it from an infrastructure perspective though most likely the google-type entities will subsidize my use and very possibly will give me 'cash back.'  As long as XT is open source that I can compile myself and verify the 2wp implementation, I've got no problems doing so.

I would even use XT if/when it sprouts blacklisting since that will probably be a requirement in my jurisdiction and vendors will not realistically be able to use an 'unsafe' currency solution.  When I want to buy trinkets from TigerDirect I don't really give a shit about these things.


TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 24, 2015, 08:48:21 PM
 #27375

I suppose that all depends on the definition of "success".

My definition of success is perhaps modest to some, but it is still far away:

Bitcoin being the protocol and the coin of the internet realm.

If it achieves this, it could well become much more, but this is the success for which it is designed.

Knowing your way of thinking, yes; it is a modest target for something that incorporates so many different things in just one package. Maybe the "beginning of success" would've been more appropriate. Smiley

Side chains are absolutely essential if you want BTC to evolve and fulfill such a goal.

Without side chains, you can assuredly kiss that hope goodbye, because for example we can see now that Bitcoin as currently designed is not decentralized because it requires all this politics on the issue of scaling.

Zangelbert Bingledack
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1022


View Profile
June 24, 2015, 08:49:33 PM
 #27376

I'm more of the opinion that Bitcoin will succeed, provided that it does not fail, and that a misstep can easily be worse than doing nothing.
Intelligent people may disagree with this.

The question is, what more qualifies as "doing nothing":

  • Letting Bitcoin operate with constantly full blocks, which has never been done before, or
  • Continuing to let Bitcoin operate with non-full blocks, effectively uncapped,* as it always has

   ?


*Of course a large part of the debate is over whether the current hard cap is actually doing anything. So the appeal to conservatism implied by "doing nothing" just pushes the question back.

Your question presumes omniscience thus it is not falsifiable. Junk science.

It's a question of perspective. There is no correct answer to what "doing nothing" really means, but it's being used as an argumentative tactic among the block-increase skeptics. I'm simply pointing out that neither side has a clear-cut, definitive claim that they are the ones proposing "doing nothing" or "maintaining the status quo" or "taking the conservative position."
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 24, 2015, 08:52:56 PM
 #27377

(sorry for the OT)

if memory serves somewhere in the last few dozens of pages there was a debate
involving climate change,  I've just found this interesting article titled
"What's really warming the world"

http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

Obfuscation is an effective form of propaganda.

Edit:


There are other threads on this topic here already.  Why pollute this one?  Wink

You're absolutely right.

Again sorry for being off topic.

Saw this after posting. Any way it was relevant to this thread because the disbelief in "conspiracy theories" is claimed as some objective argument against those of us who believe such an elite vulture capital has a takeover plan for Bitcoin.

Just for reference, those of us who's interests include the global climate change issue/scam (if they have a range of interests at all) have a lot of fun on another epic thread here:  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=374873.0  All are welcome and a lot of scammer minions have fallen.  Most of the time it only takes a few days.

Right, I (as AnonyMint) was there at the start. But it went on and on an on, so I departed.

smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246



View Profile
June 24, 2015, 08:54:22 PM
 #27378

I'm more of the opinion that Bitcoin will succeed, provided that it does not fail, and that a misstep can easily be worse than doing nothing.
Intelligent people may disagree with this.

The question is, what more qualifies as "doing nothing":

  • Letting Bitcoin operate with constantly full blocks, which has never been done before, or
  • Continuing to let Bitcoin operate with non-full blocks, effectively uncapped,* as it always has

   ?


*Of course a large part of the debate is over whether the current hard cap is actually doing anything. So the appeal to conservatism implied by "doing nothing" just pushes the question back.

Your question presumes omniscience thus it is not falsifiable. Junk science.

It's a question of perspective. There is no correct answer to what "doing nothing" really means, but it's being used as an argumentative tactic among the block-increase skeptics. I'm simply pointing out that neither side has a clear-cut, definitive claim that they are the ones proposing "doing nothing" or "maintaining the status quo" or "taking the conservative position."

Following MP's advice and never changing the protocol (thereby avoiding what he calls creating an altcoin) is an objective definition of doing nothing. It is not the only one, and it might be one that leads to Bitcoin's failure (if the original protocol was not sufficiently well designed to succeed) but at least it is objective.
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 24, 2015, 09:11:02 PM
 #27379

I suppose by that argument the Russian revolution (to use one of countless examples)  was, by definition, not a 'hostile' fork since it was democratic.

In any conflict, once the first shot is fired all involved parties are are appropriately labeled 'belligerents'.  As to who 'started it', that is left to the history books and these are, as they say, 'written by the victors.'
The fundemental error here is failing to recognize the voluntary nature of currency adoption.

Gavin proposed a change to Bitcoin that users are free to accept or decline.

The point being made is that if Bitcoin is controlled by politics, then it is no longer decentralized thus I pointed out has already failed on 1 of 2 of its goals. The solution to the Bzyantine's Generals Problem is useless, if politics can subvert it. Which is my rationale for arguing that hard money is a delusion.

tvbcof
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1974


View Profile
June 24, 2015, 09:26:01 PM
 #27380


I suppose by that argument the Russian revolution (to use one of countless examples)  was, by definition, not a 'hostile' fork since it was democratic.

In any conflict, once the first shot is fired all involved parties are are appropriately labeled 'belligerents'.  As to who 'started it', that is left to the history books and these are, as they say, 'written by the victors.'

The fundemental error here is failing to recognize the voluntary nature of currency adoption.

Gavin proposed a change to Bitcoin that users are free to accept or decline.

That some developers interpreted this as a threat and turned it into a battle only shows the weakness of their position.

The proper response would have been to convince people to not choose the change by explaning why they would be better of by doing so.

Instead, they acted with outrage over the idea that somebody proposed something without their permission and was doing a better job of convincing people that they'd benefit from his proposal instead of theirs.

This is not a sustainable position for them. Money is only as valuable as there are other people willing to accept it, and nobody is in a position to force anybody to accept Bitcoin.

People who act on the expectation that their opinions are right by default because they were there first and so aren't subject to continual validation in the marketplace of ideas are going to end up losing everything.

I personally see the bloat push as a threat because it is exactly how I would attack the system if I were chartered to come up with a strategy for doing so.  That is the first thing that hit me years ago when I put my mind to figuring out how it could be done.

This bloat push has happened periodically over the last number of years.  It was strong enough for me to diddle around philosophically with a variety of ideas, most of which pivot off of my initial conception of how to safely scale using subordinate chains.  Thankfully a lot of folks who are a lot more dedicated and a lot more capable than myself have carried this ball forward and have made giant progress toward a genuine scaling scheme which not only solves the scaling problems but adds a lot more capabilities that I didn't even imagine.

If you see 'outrage' on the part of the core devs and folks like me, it is mostly associated with the way Hearn (and by extension, Gavin) went about trying to get bloat stuffed in.  Covertly meeting with power-players inside and outside the ecosystem and trying to switch to a 'benevolent dictator' mode of code control seems outrageous to many of us because it is outrageous.

I think that the 'proper response' from the Blockstream guys and other's of their ilk would be to take off the gloves and go bare knuckles against the attackers, but they seem to cultured and to busy doing real work.  That's probably just as well because my instinct on this could well be wrong.


Pages: « 1 ... 1319 1320 1321 1322 1323 1324 1325 1326 1327 1328 1329 1330 1331 1332 1333 1334 1335 1336 1337 1338 1339 1340 1341 1342 1343 1344 1345 1346 1347 1348 1349 1350 1351 1352 1353 1354 1355 1356 1357 1358 1359 1360 1361 1362 1363 1364 1365 1366 1367 1368 [1369] 1370 1371 1372 1373 1374 1375 1376 1377 1378 1379 1380 1381 1382 1383 1384 1385 1386 1387 1388 1389 1390 1391 1392 1393 1394 1395 1396 1397 1398 1399 1400 1401 1402 1403 1404 1405 1406 1407 1408 1409 1410 1411 1412 1413 1414 1415 1416 1417 1418 1419 ... 1560 »
  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!