Bitcoin Forum
November 19, 2017, 01:06:12 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [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 ... 1466 1467 1468 1469 1470 1471 1472 1473 1474 1475 1476 1477 1478 1479 1480 1481 1482 1483 1484 1485 1486 1487 1488 1489 1490 1491 1492 1493 1494 1495 1496 1497 1498 1499 1500 1501 1502 1503 1504 1505 1506 1507 1508 1509 1510 1511 1512 1513 1514 1515 [1516] 1517 1518 1519 1520 1521 1522 1523 1524 1525 1526 1527 1528 1529 1530 1531 1532 1533 1534 1535 1536 1537 1538 1539 1540 1541 1542 1543 1544 1545 1546 1547 1548 1549 1550 1551 1552 1553 1554 1555 1556 1557 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 2009260 times)
lunarboy
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 544



View Profile
August 12, 2015, 09:58:43 PM
 #30301


There is no doubling schedule or initial ramp in BIP100. It just gives the miners the vote on any block size they like, but their consensus can't go further than double or halve the limit at any one time. So they might mostly go for a size like 1450000 then 2100000 then 1790000 depending on their capacity to handle larger blocks or the amount of fee-paying tx which are consistently in mempools.
The BV800000 is just an example but some miners are using this as a signal that they like BIP100, or that they want *something* over 1MB
The 90% is a one-off to get the process going. After that the limit chosen might be a number that has 30% support, but it is the floor of the set of votes with the extremes removed.

So would this still require a further hard fork 'if and when needed' to remove the 32MB limit?

Presumably the whole industry would be more comfortable with block size changes at that point. so it would hopefully  be less controversial.
1511096772
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511096772

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511096772
Reply with quote  #2

1511096772
Report to moderator
1511096772
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511096772

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511096772
Reply with quote  #2

1511096772
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1511096772
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511096772

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511096772
Reply with quote  #2

1511096772
Report to moderator
1511096772
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511096772

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511096772
Reply with quote  #2

1511096772
Report to moderator
1511096772
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511096772

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511096772
Reply with quote  #2

1511096772
Report to moderator
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
August 12, 2015, 10:14:59 PM
 #30302

I don't know, but you are saying we shouldn't do anything, because doing something might not be quite enough?

I'm saying that the pretense that 1 MBers are playing central bankers seems funny in the light considering most block increase proponents are the ones arguing for arbitrary control of supply.

really? I must have missed something along the way, couldyou  please share pointers to evidence on which the bolded claim is based? (serious question)

Blocksize limit = supply.

Unless you advocate lifting it completely most block increase suggestions amounts to a control of supply based on projected demand.

(of course 1MB is an equally arbitrary quota but that is beside the point I was making)

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
solex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078


100 satoshis -> ISO code


View Profile
August 12, 2015, 10:48:17 PM
 #30303


So would this still require a further hard fork 'if and when needed' to remove the 32MB limit?

Presumably the whole industry would be more comfortable with block size changes at that point. so it would hopefully  be less controversial.

Correct. And I really hope it would be less controversial because it is a much bigger change (in terms of software).

However, I suspect that this limit may handled in a multi-pronged manner. Leaving the 32MB as a message limit, but using a mixture of block segmentation logic, Extension blocks, and IBLT. Efficiencies in block relay may mean that a 32MB message block can handle 3GB  disk blocks or 10,000 TPS on the main-chain, leaving aside all the volume that would be on LN-type solutions at that time.


Man, I'm so tired of the block size debate.
I feel your pain.
Getting over this 1MB is really important and it leaves the way clear for massive scaling (as far as computing tech allows for what is deemed a "standard" full node user). Maybe Milly Bitcoin will have a definition of that for us by then.


Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
August 12, 2015, 10:55:37 PM
 #30304

I don't know, but you are saying we shouldn't do anything, because doing something might not be quite enough?

I'm saying that the pretense that 1 MBers are playing central bankers seems funny in the light considering most block increase proponents are the ones arguing for arbitrary control of supply.

really? I must have missed something along the way, couldyou  please share pointers to evidence on which the bolded claim is based? (serious question)

Blocksize limit = supply.

Unless you advocate lifting it completely most block increase suggestions amounts to a control of supply based on projected demand.

(of course 1MB is an equally arbitrary quota but that is beside the point I was making)

In classical economics, one defines a "supply curve" where the unit cost of the commodity (block space) is a monotonically increasing function of the quantity produced.  If demand grows, producers increase production to meet it (at an increased price).  This is how the free market works.



Your comment that "blocksize limit = supply" is false except in the case where the supply is constrained by the protocol rather than by economics (this continues the debate we had earlier).  As long as the limit is far above the transaction demand (much greater than Q* in the figure), then the supply is constrained economically rather than algorithmically.  The limit thus serves as only an anti-spam measure--that is, it continues to serve the original purpose it was designed for.  

  

Run Bitcoin Unlimited (www.bitcoinunlimited.info)
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
August 12, 2015, 10:59:26 PM
 #30305

I don't know, but you are saying we shouldn't do anything, because doing something might not be quite enough?

I'm saying that the pretense that 1 MBers are playing central bankers seems funny in the light considering most block increase proponents are the ones arguing for arbitrary control of supply.

really? I must have missed something along the way, couldyou  please share pointers to evidence on which the bolded claim is based? (serious question)

Blocksize limit = supply.

Unless you advocate lifting it completely most block increase suggestions amounts to a control of supply based on projected demand.

(of course 1MB is an equally arbitrary quota but that is beside the point I was making)

In classical economics, one defines a "supply curve" where the unit cost of the commodity (block space) is a monotonically increasing function of the quantity produced.  If demand grows, producers increase production to meet it (at an increased price).  This is how the free market works.



Your comment that "blocksize limit = supply" is false except in the case where the supply is constrained by the protocol rather than by economics (this continues the debate we had earlier).  As long as the limit is far above the transaction demand (much greater than Q* in the figure), then the supply is constrained economically rather than algorithmically.  The limit thus serves as only an anti-spam measure--that is, it continues to serve the original purpose it was designed for.  

That is all true only if Q* stays within the range of your assumptions.

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
August 12, 2015, 11:12:19 PM
 #30306

That is all true only if Q* stays within the range of your assumptions.

That seems like a strange way of wording what I already said: "As long as the limit is far above the transaction demand (much greater than Q* in the figure), then the supply is constrained economically rather than algorithmically."

Run Bitcoin Unlimited (www.bitcoinunlimited.info)
lunarboy
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 544



View Profile
August 13, 2015, 12:39:48 AM
 #30307

ZH Tyler and offshore Yuan hinting it might be a case of three strikes and you're out tonight  Huh

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-08-12/theres-more-come-offshore-yuan-signals-further-devaluation-tonight
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
August 13, 2015, 12:52:08 AM
 #30308

That is all true only if Q* stays within the range of your assumptions.

That seems like a strange way of wording what I already said: "As long as the limit is far above the transaction demand (much greater than Q* in the figure), then the supply is constrained economically rather than algorithmically."

See this is exactly what I'm talking about. Pretending you can predict future transaction demand and set an arbitrary limit "much greater". Sounds like something out of the FED.

To then go back to our previous argument, let's pretend that your 8 MBs blocks get filled a year before your scheduled doubling then what happens?

I guess my point is that modeling transactional demand based on historical growth is a surefire way to shoot yourself in the foot.

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 13, 2015, 01:17:46 AM
 #30309

looks like theymos just censored this post by aminok:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gsin0/call_to_theymos_please_dont_try_to_impose_your/
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 13, 2015, 01:34:54 AM
 #30310

as all of you know, i've been bearish on the USD recently as a contrary move to the mainstream assessment of USD strengthening.  my theory is that if we are entering another recession, the US won't be as lucky as 2008 in having both the USD and UST's rally as safe havens.  i think alot of our political and financial capital has been wasted as a nation in the continued bailouts and moral hazard of the last 7 yrs.  in that environment, i believe the market will have no choice but to pick UST's over the USD.

i think this comparison graph of the $DJI and the $DXY is interesting as it appears they both may be rolling over.  if so, we may be on the dawn of serious gains in hard money.  which one?  of course i think it will be Bitcoin with gold collapsing.  we'll see:

Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
August 13, 2015, 01:36:58 AM
 #30311

That is all true only if Q* stays within the range of your assumptions.
That seems like a strange way of wording what I already said: "As long as the limit is far above the transaction demand (much greater than Q* in the figure), then the supply is constrained economically rather than algorithmically."
See this is exactly what I'm talking about. Pretending you can predict future transaction demand and set an arbitrary limit "much greater". Sounds like something out of the FED.

You've really lost me here.  If the growth in demand for transactions is greater than what is permitted by BIP101, then we'll bump into the higher limit, and fees will increase more than what would be implied by my paper.  In other words "as long as the limit is far above the transaction demand (much greater than Q* in the figure), then the supply is constrained economically rather than algorithmically."

I don't understand your concern here.  What would be so bad about hitting the higher (and constantly increasing) limit earlier than historical extrapolation would predict? [not that I think that's likely, but still]

To then go back to our previous argument, let's pretend that your 8 MBs blocks get filled a year before your scheduled doubling then what happens?

Then fees would be more than what's suggested in my paper.  What would be wrong with that [in the unlikely event it happens]?  In fact, it would just be something like the realization of the "high" growth curve shown here:



I guess my point is that modeling transactional demand based on historical growth is a surefire way to shoot yourself in the foot.

There are several "transactional demands" modelled in the above graph. They would all work fine with BIP101.  It's just that in the case of the "high growth" curve, the fee market might begin to be affected by the block size limit, rather than strictly due to economic supply and demand.  

How do you propose this is "shooting yourself in the foot?"  

Run Bitcoin Unlimited (www.bitcoinunlimited.info)
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 13, 2015, 01:44:51 AM
 #30312

That is all true only if Q* stays within the range of your assumptions.
That seems like a strange way of wording what I already said: "As long as the limit is far above the transaction demand (much greater than Q* in the figure), then the supply is constrained economically rather than algorithmically."
See this is exactly what I'm talking about. Pretending you can predict future transaction demand and set an arbitrary limit "much greater". Sounds like something out of the FED.

You've really lost me here.  If the growth in demand for transactions is greater than what is permitted by BIP101, then we'll bump into the higher limit, and fees will increase more than what would be implied by my paper.  In other words "as long as the limit is far above the transaction demand (much greater than Q* in the figure), then the supply is constrained economically rather than algorithmically."

I don't understand your concern here.  What would be so bad about hitting the higher (and constantly increasing) limit earlier than historical extrapolation would predict? [not that I think that's likely, but still]

To then go back to our previous argument, let's pretend that your 8 MBs blocks get filled a year before your scheduled doubling then what happens?

Then fees would be more than what's suggested in my paper.  What would be wrong with that [in the unlikely event it happens]?  In fact, it would just be something like the realization of the "high" growth curve shown here:



I guess my point is that modeling transactional demand based on historical growth is a surefire way to shoot yourself in the foot.

There are several "transactional demands" modelled in the above graph. They would all work fine with BIP101.  It's just that in the case of the "high growth" curve, the fee market might begin to be affected by the block size limit, rather than strictly due to economic supply and demand.  

How do you propose this is "shooting yourself in the foot?"  


don't try to be logical with him.  you'll lose every time.

you've already said that your endgame would be to see no limit like i have stated many times.  if only to keep the Cripplecoiners from freaking out, your paper tries to model an upper bound to prevent us from bumping up against the limit so as to avoid spammers entering the mkt near that point (at low cost to them) to try and clog up the network.  ideally, there would be no limit to eliminate this risk entirely.  but even with a limit set so high, if tx's filled blocks that large, that would be a great problem to have compared to the current handicap of 1MB.

IOW, he wants to penalize you for trying just b/c you might not be perfect.  therefore, you are just like a central banker.  Roll Eyes
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 13, 2015, 01:51:48 AM
 #30313


/u/aminok confirms:

re: theymos

from aminok sent 2 minutes ago

You're right. I'm legitimately shocked. Not sure how to respond.

    permalinkreportblock usermark unreadreply
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 13, 2015, 02:00:25 AM
 #30314

ZH Tyler and offshore Yuan hinting it might be a case of three strikes and you're out tonight  Huh

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-08-12/theres-more-come-offshore-yuan-signals-further-devaluation-tonight

you're on:

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/08/12/china-gets-cold-feet-about-floating-yuan.html
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 13, 2015, 02:11:16 AM
 #30315

https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoin_uncensored/comments/3gsnlf/need_to_engage_in_a_marketing_campaign/cu151f3?context=3
notme
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1848


View Profile
August 13, 2015, 02:13:58 AM
 #30316


So China decides to float the yuan when the dollar is high, and controls the descent by selling USD.

That seems to align well with your thesis on the market favoring UST over USD as safe haven.

https://www.bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
While no idea is perfect, some ideas are useful.
12jh3odyAAaR2XedPKZNCR4X4sebuotQzN
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
August 13, 2015, 02:56:10 AM
 #30317


/u/aminok confirms:

re: theymos

from aminok sent 2 minutes ago

You're right. I'm legitimately shocked. Not sure how to respond.

    permalinkreportblock usermark unreadreply


There was just a post by /u/raisethelimit where something he wrote got censored, and then he was trying to test the new auto-modding to find out what comments and submissions are getting automatically hidden, but now the entire test post was just censored too.  I saved the link though:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gsxqf/all_my_posts_are_currently_being_censored_this_is/

His conclusion was that any submission or comment with a link to the "sub-reddits that shall not be named" are getting automatically hidden.

Run Bitcoin Unlimited (www.bitcoinunlimited.info)
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 13, 2015, 03:02:01 AM
 #30318


/u/aminok confirms:

re: theymos

from aminok sent 2 minutes ago

You're right. I'm legitimately shocked. Not sure how to respond.

    permalinkreportblock usermark unreadreply


There was just a post by /u/raisethelimit where something he wrote got censored, and then he was trying to test the new auto-modding to find out what comments and submissions are getting automatically hidden, but now the entire test post was just censored too.  I saved the link though:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gsxqf/all_my_posts_are_currently_being_censored_this_is/

His conclusion was that any submission or comment with a link to the "sub-reddits that shall not be named" are getting automatically hidden.

which ones?
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
August 13, 2015, 03:43:11 AM
 #30319

What would be so bad about hitting the higher (and constantly increasing) limit earlier than historical extrapolation would predict? [not that I think that's likely, but still]

To then go back to our previous argument, let's pretend that your 8 MBs blocks get filled a year before your scheduled doubling then what happens?

Then fees would be more than what's suggested in my paper.  What would be wrong with that [in the unlikely event it happens]?  In fact, it would just be something like the realization of the "high" growth curve shown here:



I guess my point is that modeling transactional demand based on historical growth is a surefire way to shoot yourself in the foot.

There are several "transactional demands" modelled in the above graph. They would all work fine with BIP101.  It's just that in the case of the "high growth" curve, the fee market might begin to be affected by the block size limit, rather than strictly due to economic supply and demand.  

How do you propose this is "shooting yourself in the foot?"  

Here is what I'm thinking: considering you are hell bent on selling the world on the value of the Bitcoin payment network, do you reasonably believe that Bitcoin is gonna make it to Paypal's level of TPS only in 2024? What if we get there less than 5 years from now? Is this really "unlikely"? I honestly don't think so especially if you and others have your way and attempt to fit every single transactions on the Bitcoin blockchain. Remember that "supply creates its own demand".

My concern is that I'm not sure it is safe for the decentralization of the network to try to handle 32mb per blocks within 2020, much less 64. In my mind this would necessarily imply an important if not dangerous decrease in the range of entities who are able to run full nodes. I don't want to hear anything about the amount of nodes as it is not a reliable indicator. As much as cypherdoc would like to believe that an individual running multiple nodes improves the decentralization of the network this is obviously not the case. Finally I'm also worried we would find ourselves in a much worse spot than we already are in regards to mining centralization.

My point is this reliance on block size increase as a scaling solution is a slippery road. One that if we do not travel through cautiously could seriously hinder the security of the network and ultimately result in turning Bitcoin into pale copy of Ripple.

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1834


[LOL2X]


View Profile WWW
August 13, 2015, 04:11:31 AM
 #30320


There is no such thing as a store of value.


There is no such thing as a thing.

Separateness is an illusion.  All that exists is the Unified Field and the Void (sort of).

Oh sorry, I thought I was in a late night dorm room session discussing our Epistomology 101 homework, not a thread for adults focused on the practical implications of Gold vs Bitcoin.

Yo dawg, pass that sick glass you got at Pipes Plus over here...   Cheesy


██████████
█████████████████
██████████████████████
█████████████████████████
████████████████████████████
████
████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
███████████████████████████
██████
██████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
█████████████
██████████████
████████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
██████████████████████
█████████████████
██████████

Monero
"The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine
whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy." 
David Chaum 1996
"Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect."  Adam Back 2014
Buy and sell XMR near you
P2P Exchange Network
Buy XMR with fiat
Pages: « 1 ... 1466 1467 1468 1469 1470 1471 1472 1473 1474 1475 1476 1477 1478 1479 1480 1481 1482 1483 1484 1485 1486 1487 1488 1489 1490 1491 1492 1493 1494 1495 1496 1497 1498 1499 1500 1501 1502 1503 1504 1505 1506 1507 1508 1509 1510 1511 1512 1513 1514 1515 [1516] 1517 1518 1519 1520 1521 1522 1523 1524 1525 1526 1527 1528 1529 1530 1531 1532 1533 1534 1535 1536 1537 1538 1539 1540 1541 1542 1543 1544 1545 1546 1547 1548 1549 1550 1551 1552 1553 1554 1555 1556 1557 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!