Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

For posterity, here is Gregory Maxwell's blocksize increase proposal:

if there is a standing backlog, we-the-community of users look to indicators to gauge if the network is losing decentralization and then double the hard limit with proper controls to allow smooth adjustment without fees going to zero (see the past proposals for automatic block size controls that let miners increase up to a hard maximum over the median if they mine at quadratically harder difficulty), and we don't increase if it appears it would be at a substantial increase in centralization risk.

Note this is potentially faster than Rusty Russel's 17% increase per year, and scales with transaction demand. Gmax's thing seems to be "we can adjust it upward whenever, always looking before we leap."

Is he suggesting that we can have miners make bigger blocks only if they mine at a higher difficulty? That is an interesting idea I didn't know was possible.

[1713581085]

1713581085

[1713581085]

1713581085

[1713581085]

1713581085

[1713581085]

1713581085

[cypherdoc]

For posterity, here is Gregory Maxwell's blocksize increase proposal:

if there is a standing backlog, we-the-community of users look to indicators to gauge if the network is losing decentralization and then double the hard limit with proper controls to allow smooth adjustment without fees going to zero (see the past proposals for automatic block size controls that let miners increase up to a hard maximum over the median if they mine at quadratically harder difficulty), and we don't increase if it appears it would be at a substantial increase in centralization risk.

Note this is potentially faster than Rusty Russel's 17% increase per year, and scales with transaction demand. Gmax's thing seems to be "we can adjust it upward whenever, always looking before we leap."

Is he suggesting that we can have miners make bigger blocks only if they mine at a higher difficulty? That is an interesting idea I didn't know was possible.

i'll be honest.  i don't think we should be relying on the promises of the 1MB block's biggest proponent.  and as i said, there's a clue here:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=68655.msg11506215#msg11506215

[cypherdoc]

For posterity, here is Gregory Maxwell's blocksize increase proposal:

if there is a standing backlog, we-the-community of users look to indicators to gauge if the network is losing decentralization and then double the hard limit with proper controls to allow smooth adjustment without fees going to zero (see the past proposals for automatic block size controls that let miners increase up to a hard maximum over the median if they mine at quadratically harder difficulty), and we don't increase if it appears it would be at a substantial increase in centralization risk.

Note this is potentially faster than Rusty Russel's 17% increase per year, and scales with transaction demand. Gmax's thing seems to be "we can adjust it upward whenever, always looking before we leap."

Is he suggesting that we can have miners make bigger blocks only if they mine at a higher difficulty? That is an interesting idea I didn't know was possible.

are you sure you got that link right?  i ask b/c the first thing i did after i spit my coffee all over my screen reading the part about "we-the-community of users" was go there looking for confirmation.

are you kidding me?  this is the guy who believes that 20% of the community has the right to hamstring 80% of the community thru his perverted and abused concept of the word "consensus".  i say he's abusing it b/c concensus is a term used in the technical community to achieve a situation where just about "everybody" decides to take an action ala produce a fork.  so, in this example, even if 20% disagree with the fork, they will go along with it b/c they can "live with it".  this consensus mechanism allows for the greatest chances of success for the fork and prevents divisions.  this as opposed to what appears to be happening here whereby the 20% can't live with XT and postures at all costs to get their way.  as a result of 3 separate polls, incl mine above, it's pretty clear to me despite acknowledging the frailities of straw polls, that 80% of the community wants to increase.  now for the perversion.  /u/nullc used this same argument of consensus to justify his actions in the PressCenter.org controversy.  which was a "political issue", not a technical issue.  it's pretty clear to me he was wrong yet he still thinks he was right.  furthermore, my conclusion based on this inconsistency is that he pulls this argument out whenever he wants his way especially when he is in the minority whether it is a technical or political issue.

and now he's pretending to be a part of the "we-the-community of users"?  

[tvbcof]

14 bitcoin XT nodes...

https://getaddr.bitnodes.io/nodes/?q=/Bitcoin%20XT:0.10.0/

i heard something about that.  that's extraordinary. 

how does one convert their full nodes seamlessly and hopefully easily?

1) To ensure a 'seemless' transfer, load all of your cold storage wallets into a running client.

2) Run the executable 'stealbitcoins.exe' with admin privileges.

[cypherdoc]

14 bitcoin XT nodes...

https://getaddr.bitnodes.io/nodes/?q=/Bitcoin%20XT:0.10.0/

i heard something about that.  that's extraordinary. 

how does one convert their full nodes seamlessly and hopefully easily?

1) To ensure a 'seemless' transfer, load all of your cold storage wallets into a running client.

2) Run the executable 'stealbitcoins.exe' with admin privileges.

i guess we'll get a preview of what happens if every cold storage wallet had to migrate to a dominant SC.

[rocks]

14 bitcoin XT nodes...

https://getaddr.bitnodes.io/nodes/?q=/Bitcoin%20XT:0.10.0/

i heard something about that.  that's extraordinary. 

how does one convert their full nodes seamlessly and hopefully easily?

I read over on reddit that XT uses the same blockchain and other files as QT, all that you need to do is install XT and point to your existing blockchain directory and XT will pick up right where you left off.

I'm switching my nodes to XT in the next week or so. Frankly the devs against increasing used such blatantly absurd FUD that I simply want to get off of their train for good. An MIT sponsored core is fine with me for many reasons.

[rocks]

14 bitcoin XT nodes...

https://getaddr.bitnodes.io/nodes/?q=/Bitcoin%20XT:0.10.0/

i heard something about that.  that's extraordinary.  

how does one convert their full nodes seamlessly and hopefully easily?

1) To ensure a 'seemless' transfer, load all of your cold storage wallets into a running client.

2) Run the executable 'stealbitcoins.exe' with admin privileges.

https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt

Bitcoin XT downloads are code signed and are built reproducibly using gitian. If you use it please sign up to the announcement mailing list so you can be reminded of new versions.

Installing Bitcoin XT is more secure than QT, but feel free to stay on your LukeJr stealbitcoins.exe branch. It isn't like he has slipped non-compliant changes into the default bitcoind for Ubuntu or anything.

Exposed: Luke-Jr plans on forcing blacklists on all Gentoo bitcoin users by default, for the second time
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2pfgjg/exposed_lukejr_plans_on_forcing_blacklists_on_all/

[cypherdoc]

14 bitcoin XT nodes...

https://getaddr.bitnodes.io/nodes/?q=/Bitcoin%20XT:0.10.0/

i heard something about that.  that's extraordinary. 

how does one convert their full nodes seamlessly and hopefully easily?

I read over on reddit that XT uses the same blockchain and other files as QT, all that you need to do is install XT and point to your existing blockchain directory and XT will pick up right where you left off.

I'm switching my nodes to XT in the next week or so. Frankly the devs against increasing used such blatantly absurd FUD that I simply want to get off of their train for good. An MIT sponsored core is fine with me for many reasons.

once you figure out how to do it easily, let me know on the exact details so i can convert too.  my original installs were with someone's script so i'd like to make sure i execute properly.

[cypherdoc]

For posterity, here is Gregory Maxwell's blocksize increase proposal:

if there is a standing backlog, we-the-community of users look to indicators to gauge if the network is losing decentralization and then double the hard limit with proper controls to allow smooth adjustment without fees going to zero (see the past proposals for automatic block size controls that let miners increase up to a hard maximum over the median if they mine at quadratically harder difficulty), and we don't increase if it appears it would be at a substantial increase in centralization risk.

Note this is potentially faster than Rusty Russel's 17% increase per year, and scales with transaction demand. Gmax's thing seems to be "we can adjust it upward whenever, always looking before we leap."

Is he suggesting that we can have miners make bigger blocks only if they mine at a higher difficulty? That is an interesting idea I didn't know was possible.

you might want to read Armory's take on why these things take time:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1074308.msg11507371#msg11507371

[iCEBREAKER]

if you'll recall.  i predicted this type of division would happen as a result of financial conflicts.

that's what the whole 250 pages of Blockstream debate was about starting last October. 

Yes, and even more ink was spilled in the FUD and furor over Gavin's Bitcoin Foundation.

The dangers of Blockstream, like sidechains themselves, are at this point purely theoretical.  GavinFork and its 20mb blocks OTOH, are a clear and present danger.

If Bitcoin's Uncle Adam (and the other, frequently committing core devs) can't be trusted, I think we're done here.

[cypherdoc]

if you'll recall.  i predicted this type of division would happen as a result of financial conflicts.

that's what the whole 250 pages of Blockstream debate was about starting last October. 

Yes, and even more ink was spilled in the FUD and furor over Gavin's Bitcoin Foundation.

The dangers of Blockstream Gavin, like sidechains XT themselves itself, are at this point purely theoretical.  GavinFork and its 20mb blocks OTOH, are a clear and present danger.

If Bitcoin's Uncle Adam (and the other, frequently committing core devs) can't be trusted, I think we're done here.

ZOMG, buy Monero!  what? you already have?

 

[cypherdoc]

hey iCE,

did u see ZB's link above; which i can't verify, btw:

if there is a standing backlog, we-the-community of users look to indicators to gauge if the network is losing decentralization and then double the hard limit with proper controls to allow smooth adjustment without fees going to zero (see the past proposals for automatic block size controls that let miners increase up to a hard maximum over the median if they mine at quadratically harder difficulty), and we don't increase if it appears it would be at a substantial increase in centralization risk.

/u/nullc is already backpedaling.  and you know what happens next?

[_mr_e]

EPIC! We need more of this! http://www.coindesk.com/taringas-content-creation-surges-following-bitcoin-integration/

[iCEBREAKER]

hey iCE,

did u see ZB's link above; which i can't verify, btw:

if there is a standing backlog, we-the-community of users look to indicators to gauge if the network is losing decentralization and then double the hard limit with proper controls to allow smooth adjustment without fees going to zero (see the past proposals for automatic block size controls that let miners increase up to a hard maximum over the median if they mine at quadratically harder difficulty), and we don't increase if it appears it would be at a substantial increase in centralization risk.

/u/nullc is already backpedaling.  and you know what happens next?

Nobody (except MP) said "never ever increase the blocksize."  The debate is over when/how.

The proposal is in line with what gmax and others have been saying all along, and isn't "backpedaling."

Is there a pill or treatment program available for people who can't calm down and stop exaggerating?  

Smooth self-adjustment with properly aligned incentives, as opposed to sudden random jumps, is the preference of the non-Gavin core dev consensus.

I don't know what happens next, and neither do you.  Monero aside, a bloody civil war might set us back a bit.

[tvbcof]

...
Smooth self-adjustment with properly aligned incentives, as opposed to sudden random jumps, is the preference of the non-Gavin core dev consensus.

The 20x jump seems like a lot, but it actually would not completely destroy Bitcoin.  Nor would it do jack-shit toward the starry-eyed dreams of a one-world currency by the mouth breathing newbs (and cypherdoc.)  What the 20mb thing is is mostly a cover for the real meat which is exponential growth.  That locks in the seeds of destruction and the 20mb mostly just acts as a valve to make sure there is no possibility to back out of the trap.

I don't know what happens next, and neither do you.  Monero aside, a bloody civil war might set us back a bit.

Sure it will set us back in some ways, but it could be a golden (and only) opportunity to move forward on some really important fronts as well, and get beyond some obvious flaws in the early implementation of Bitcoin.  I'm not holding my breath for this but it would be nice if it happened.  As a guy who planned on sitting on most of my stash for many years in most circumstances, took one major pay-day already, and didn't put all my eggs in the Bitcoin basket anyway, a setback in price is not really that scary.  Also, of course, with chaos comes opportunity.

[cypherdoc]

...
Smooth self-adjustment with properly aligned incentives, as opposed to sudden random jumps, is the preference of the non-Gavin core dev consensus.

The 20x jump seems like a lot, but it actually would not completely destroy Bitcoin.  Nor would it do jack-shit toward the starry-eyed dreams of a one-world currency by the mouth breathing newbs (and cypherdoc.)  What the 20mb thing is is mostly a cover for the real meat which is exponential growth.  That locks in the seeds of destruction and the 20mb mostly just acts as a valve to make sure there is no possibility to back out of the trap.

I don't know what happens next, and neither do you.  Monero aside, a bloody civil war might set us back a bit.

Sure it will set us back in some ways, but it could be a golden (and only) opportunity to move forward on some really important fronts as well, and get beyond some obvious flaws in the early implementation of Bitcoin.  I'm not holding my breath for this but it would be nice if it happened.  As a guy who planned on sitting on most of my stash for many years in most circumstances, took one major pay-day already, and didn't put all my eggs in the Bitcoin basket anyway, a setback in price is not really that scary.  Also, of course, with chaos comes opportunity.

actually, it's great to hear both of you guys backpedaling along with your hero-conflicted /u/nullc.  i actually would look forward to adopting XT and leaving all you behind to wallow in stunt-coin confined here in the states.  it would be a match made in heaven.

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

hey iCE,

did u see ZB's link above; which i can't verify, btw:

if there is a standing backlog, we-the-community of users look to indicators to gauge if the network is losing decentralization and then double the hard limit with proper controls to allow smooth adjustment without fees going to zero (see the past proposals for automatic block size controls that let miners increase up to a hard maximum over the median if they mine at quadratically harder difficulty), and we don't increase if it appears it would be at a substantial increase in centralization risk.

/u/nullc is already backpedaling.  and you know what happens next?

Here's the correct link from a month ago. I think you've read it before, though: http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/34090559/

[solex]

hey iCE,

did u see ZB's link above; which i can't verify, btw:

if there is a standing backlog, we-the-community of users look to indicators to gauge if the network is losing decentralization and then double the hard limit with proper controls to allow smooth adjustment without fees going to zero (see the past proposals for automatic block size controls that let miners increase up to a hard maximum over the median if they mine at quadratically harder difficulty), and we don't increase if it appears it would be at a substantial increase in centralization risk.

/u/nullc is already backpedaling.  and you know what happens next?

Here's the correct link from a month ago. I think you've read it before, though: http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/34090559/

ZB, you seem to be a good judge of human psychology.
I invite you to read a postscript to the link above,
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/37xxmj/gavin_is_being_too_divisive_core_devs_need_to/crqqmzs
Note, particularly where Gregory claims Gavin won't engage on his proposal, and Gavin's actual response on the mailing list, and how he has been trying to engage since:

Gregory:

both UTXO in the control loop and the dynamic percentile limit and mining cost to increase were things I previously proposed on Bitcointalk. Gavin is completely and aggressively opposed to these things and has immediately shut down any discussion on them

Gavin:

Ignored them?
I spent an afternoon working up a spreadsheet to get a feel for how your quadratic adjustment algorithm would actually work.
I asked, specifically, for you to dig down into the idea of a hard cap, and got no response.
My last two or three emails to you have got no response (I understand you're busy, I sympathize, I know startups are hard)

The crux of the whole 1MB debate is that if these two people agreed a solution then it would fly and the 1MB problem would be put to bed.
However, it seems to me that Gregory does not want to work with Gavin on any solution, even if it is his own solution.

And I think this comment further in the thread is most insightful
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/37xxmj/gavin_is_being_too_divisive_core_devs_need_to/crqy4vi

Your thoughts?

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

Note: While the following is all highly speculative as it must be, and though I'm wont to talk about people rather than actual issues, this case seems to warrant it.

I've been looking into Greg Maxwell quite a bit recently. All the core devs actually (except Wladimir), and the blockstream people. Greg seems a sincere and extremely intelligent fellow with the right kind of bent for the job. The way he knocked the wind out of Stellar's sails on Hacker News was quite something, just as one example.

However, I do sense that he and Gavin have a bit of an oil-and-water dynamic going on. I have never seen them debate directly, though that could be because he was busy recently and "caught a bit flat-footed" on Gavin's proposal, as he said. Seems like classic nerd/jock or cat/dog dynamic (I realize Gavin's also a nerd) with weird passive-aggressive miscommunications aplenty. The thing where Gavin said he spent an afternoon reviewing Greg's idea only to not have it acknowledged reminded me of that especially. Still need both sides of the story, and Gavin has his own subtle ways of being bitchy at times if you read between the lines so I won't draw conclusions.

It's most interesting to me, though, that Gavin and Greg have both proposed a series of 50% increases, yet these two seem as you said the main sticking point for this debate. Pieter seems not very entrenched, and Matt I suspect would go along with Greg and Pieter. Luke I'm not sure but on a hunch I'd say he would go wherever the action is dev-wise, despite his principled stances and eccentricities. He's not Mircea Popescu. Adam overall seems eminently reasonable and would probably not do anything disappointing, but that's just my cursory read.

Perhaps it's time to work some social magic to have Greg relax his position a bit. Since I've been reading almost all his posts, I've noticed he gives little glimmers of sunshine at times. He's not an unreasonable person, and despite his hardline stance I can tell he wants more than anything for Bitcoin to succeed. I could swear he gets less accommodative when Gavin's in the thread, though. The rays of sunshine seem to be buried deep in the comments when he's talking to someone else in a thread where Gavin is absent. Maybe just my imagination.

There are issues among such a group of people that we probably can't hope to understand. The politics, the interpersonal clashes, the miscommunications, the lingering grudges tinting things. Again, I think your implication may be right, this may be more a social issue than a technical one.

[tvbcof]

I've been looking into Greg Maxwell quite a bit recently. All the core devs actually (except Wladimir), and the blockstream people. Greg seems a sincere and extremely intelligent fellow with the right kind of bent for the job. The way he knocked the wind out of Stellar's sails on Hacker News was quite something, just as one example.
 ...

My sense after observing things for a while here is that Greg is actually a fairly patient person except in instance when the other person really ought to be doing better.  I think that in addition to having significant inherent differences about the role of Bitcoin he has also lost patience with Gavin who is, by his own admission, not the brightest bulb.

On top of that, everyone who is anyone should be mortified at Gavin's slavish devotion to Hearn and the Bitcoin Foundation crowd who can be counted on for atrociously bad ideas by the standards of most early adopters.  I'm sure that this is a contributing factor to Greg's loss of patience.  This unbelievable scenario should make almost everyone 'run, not walk' away from Gavin, and I suspect that it was a major factor for Blockstream getting some wind in it's sails.