Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Adrian-x]

But polls show that Gavin has a clear majority... its just certain core devs who object and not on technical grounds.  And most of them are working for a single organization.  How is that "hectoring a community"?

It isn't. Who said that?

There is a difference between "we need a hard fork to increase the block size" and "Gavin's plan is the way to do it, (which ever plan he settles upon)"

Most all the devs want a hard fork to increase block size.  Very few are on board with Gavin's plan.
Anyhow, it looks like the Bitcoin Core hard fork will be more likely to progress from gmaxwell's BIP, and the XT fork from Gavins perhaps.
They may remain compatible until there is a block that one would process and the other wouldn't.

You can include me in that contingent: we do need a hard fork to increase the block size (and only for what that will achieve, buying time). Very few people are debating that now, and I myself have been aware of the scalability issue for almost as long as I've been interested in bitcoin.

Re: which designs will be implemented on which fork; I thought Gavin had decided against the hostile fork?

the use of the term hostile is propaganda.

its not hostile, it's only hostile if you are feeling threatened like maybe the majority of Core developer working on another another hard fork and want to leverage block size increase with your proposed improvements.

Telling the entire core dev team, the commercial bitcoin players and the bitcoin user community that if they didn't like it, they were powerless to stop him? This is friendly gesture in your eyes?

I'm not even being rhetorical using the word "hostile", Gavin and Mike's attitude was exactly that: hostile.

I dont see it like that, I see Gmaxwell plowing ahead with his SideChains with full intent to implement the change to Bitcoin regardless of introducing new protocol intensives to take transactions off chain and the resulting economic consequence, this very action is a hostile takeover by Blockstream.

that said, it's always been that no one can force users to use a modified version of Bitcoin if development becomes centralized, saying "it'll never happen it's oven-source, we'll just fork the code". well its now centralized, Gmaxwell has been very vocal in promoting the fact that Gavin has no voice in the development of Bitcoin and is in the minority, and is quick to say he is not a Lead Developer, while technical true, he has taken on a self proclaimed role of Lead Scientist, in my view a more general and holistic vantage point.

there is lots of misinformation out there, and I don't see the masses getting involved in this debate, just looking at the pols people keep talking about, there are at most a few 100 or so voters, while Coinbase boast over 3M individual wallets that's a lot of early adopters invested in Bitcoin - ( i imagine that is 1 or 2 wallets per user) and we are not seeing them push for the changes.

at the end of the day Bitcoin incentives are driven by the economic majority, not a centralized core group, the economic majority will promote the incentive sachems that are the most beneficial to the largest audience to maximize there return. even miners shouldn't be have a voice like they do in this debate.

[1714167843]

1714167843

[1714167843]

1714167843

[1714167843]

1714167843

[1714167843]

1714167843

[1714167843]

1714167843

[Peter R]

I will refine the question: do you think bitcoin scales up to it's widest potential user base (everyone) using only block size increases, and remain peer to peer? We're all aware that's not possible, no?

Yes, I think bitcoin can scale to an enormous user base and remain decentralized using only blocksize increases.  No, I do not think typical users will want to run full nodes in this case.  Yes, I think users will still have access to the blockchain.  

This might be contentious, but I don't think we need a lot of nodes for bitcoin to remain decentralized.  Even if there were only 10 miners in the world, as long as:

- the miners are in different legal jurisdictions and run by people of different political views, and

- the system remains open such that if I feel really really strongly about it, that I can run a node and mine too

then I think Bitcoin will remain decentralized and be vastly better than the present monetary system.

(For the record, I do not want nor expect there only to be 10 miners running full nodes in the future.  I suspect there will be much more.)

[TPTB_need_war]

Even if there were only 10 miners in the world, as long as:

Sorry to now say that makes you a certified idiot. I've lost the respect I had for you. You appear to be an engineer with a calculator in your pocket who is clueless about society.

An engineer with no perspective is very dangerous.

- the system remains open such that if I feel really really strongly about it, that I can run a node and mine too

You wouldn't have enough hashrate to have any impact against a network with only 10 miners. Duh.

[Adrian-x]

Perhaps the bitcoin economy has matured enough that a set max block size is not actually needed anymore?!

What if we had some type of patch that eliminated "silly sized blocks" and allowed miners to set any soft limit they want? Have it something like: allow any size as long as it's not more than x3 (or other number) the previous months average block size.

Market incentives will drive each mining pools soft limits. Increasing the limits will stimulate growth (increase centralization if done too fast compared to technology because of resources needed) while smaller blocks will increase fees. Some may like smaller blocks because of risk of orphans while others will want large blocks to grow the user base of people using bitcoins. Allowing a x3 size block means that as long as a minority are making small blocks, those who want larger ones can still help grow the "silly size" limit and those who have weak internet connections just have to download the blocks and can continue making small ones.

A spam attacker could only create large blocks that were bigger than all the pools soft limits only by mining it himself and the largest block he could create would be a x3 of the blocks on the system. And just like it's in their economic self interest to not get bigger than 51% it would also be in pools own self interest to not have a soft limit that would risk too much centralization of the system by making it too large for current technology and allows for the system to rapidly adapt at the time. The fact that most mining is done by pools means that the soft limit can be more fluid.

Ultimately if we let pools set any limit they want would they set limits that would allow bitcoin to thrive? If we assume the majority of pools act in the interest of a growing decentralized system would max block size be needed anymore other than something to prevent a "silly size" block?

this is the conclusion I've been waiting for people to come to.

I dont think it will happen, and that means I have to watch my BTC like a Hawk.  

[pleaseexplainagain]

Perhaps the bitcoin economy has matured enough that a set max block size is not actually needed anymore?!

What if we had some type of patch that eliminated "silly sized blocks" and allowed miners to set any soft limit they want? Have it something like: allow any size as long as it's not more than x3 (or other number) the previous months average block size.

Market incentives will drive each mining pools soft limits. Increasing the limits will stimulate growth (increase centralization if done too fast compared to technology because of resources needed) while smaller blocks will increase fees. Some may like smaller blocks because of risk of orphans while others will want large blocks to grow the user base of people using bitcoins. Allowing a x3 size block means that as long as a minority are making small blocks, those who want larger ones can still help grow the "silly size" limit and those who have weak internet connections just have to download the blocks and can continue making small ones.

A spam attacker could only create large blocks that were bigger than all the pools soft limits only by mining it himself and the largest block he could create would be a x3 of the blocks on the system. And just like it's in their economic self interest to not get bigger than 51% it would also be in pools own self interest to not have a soft limit that would risk too much centralization of the system by making it too large for current technology and allows for the system to rapidly adapt at the time. The fact that most mining is done by pools means that the soft limit can be more fluid.

Ultimately if we let pools set any limit they want would they set limits that would allow bitcoin to thrive? If we assume the majority of pools act in the interest of a growing decentralized system would max block size be needed anymore other than something to prevent a "silly size" block?

That's my ultimate vote; no block size limit.

I also agree and think it fits the original satoshi idea - let the market decide but set some bound to stop accidental or deliberate ruining of the system (here 'silly sized' blocks)

[Peter R]

Even if there were only 10 miners in the world, as long as:

Sorry to now say that makes you a certified idiot. I've lost the respect I had for you. You appear to be an engineer with a calculator in your pocket who is clueless about society.

An engineer with no perspective is very dangerous.

https://twitter.com/NickSzabo4/status/610654279775461376

[tvbcof]

cypherdoc changed his mind because Gavin did presumably.  Gavin did because it was easier to do this as quitely as possible than to try to change the laws of arithmetic.

Both of them know that it's the exponential growth that is the critical element here since it is pretty certain to sink Bitcoin eventually.  (Actually, cypherdoc may or may not know that or may or may not care much if he can make a buck in the interim.)

Quite clever wasn't it to start with 20MB then appear to compromise with some bloc of obscure "Chinese miners" who want 8MB and quietly slip in the exponential scaling.

The hypothesis that Gavin simply fucked up the argument+ arithmetic seems stronger to me.  He seems to be the best bet as 'benevolent dictator' since Hearn has burnt way to many bridges.  It wouldn't do to have the main man be so incompetent if it were a concocted plan.

Rothschilds (and the CIA) would be proud of the deception.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/editor-of-major-german-newspaper-says-he-planted-stories-for-the-cia/5429324

USG has no power abroad 

Huh?  The idea that the CIA performs a variety of psychological operations abroad isn't even a conspiracy.  It is known that they have not only the authority but a charter to do this and have been at it for many decades.  They brag about it for Christsake!

What they didn't have the legal authority to do until 2013 (due to the national defense authorization act of 2012) was to directly target the domestic population.  One of the many work-arounds was to plant stories in overseas media expecting it to be picked up domestically.  Again, this happened for many decades and it was never a great secret.

Interesting that some really fishy things started popping up here in the good-ole U.S.A, after 2012.  Among them the Boston bombing, Sandy Hook, Bundy ranch.  The more one looks into some of them the fishier they seem.  Not saying anything...just saying...

[TPTB_need_war]

Even if there were only 10 miners in the world, as long as:

Sorry to now say that makes you a certified idiot. I've lost the respect I had for you. You appear to be an engineer with a calculator in your pocket who is clueless about society.

An engineer with no perspective is very dangerous.

https://twitter.com/NickSzabo4/status/610654279775461376

He is saying that 9 decentralized nodes are better 10,000 nodes which are run by 1 node.

He is saying nothing about the virtues of a network with 9 nodes.

Duh.

[cypherdoc]

part of the reason ppl like Carlton think i'm over the top in this block size debate is that they don't realize i predicted a conflict like this would arise back in October when Blockstream first announced themselves and published their whitepaper.  i said then that SC's were a financial conflict and that other changes to Bitcoin Core could also be shelved that might compete with SC's.  of course, at the time, i couldn't have imagined exactly what that exact conflict would be.  turns out it is now the block size limit.   and it might be just the first thing.  tomorrow it could be something else that doesn't get developed that competes with SC's.

as a result of feeling i've been proven correct in my suspicions, yes, i have been vocal about supporting Gavin's changes.  especially since Gavin isn't confrontational and stays in the background while the Blockstream guys have been out in force.  i think he's on the correct path, has a good plan, and does not have a financial conflict.  yes, i trust Gavin way more than the other guys and it amazes me that ppl think he is plotting anything.  i'm convinced the major players such as exchanges, merchants, and others have gone to him to ask for the block size increase to increase user adoption.  it only makes sense that they would want growth.

[TPTB_need_war]

cypherdoc changed his mind because Gavin did presumably.  Gavin did because it was easier to do this as quitely as possible than to try to change the laws of arithmetic.

Both of them know that it's the exponential growth that is the critical element here since it is pretty certain to sink Bitcoin eventually.  (Actually, cypherdoc may or may not know that or may or may not care much if he can make a buck in the interim.)

Quite clever wasn't it to start with 20MB then appear to compromise with some bloc of obscure "Chinese miners" who want 8MB and quietly slip in the exponential scaling.

The hypothesis that Gavin simply fucked up the argument+ arithmetic seems stronger to me.  He seems to be the best bet as 'benevolent dictator' since Hearn has burnt way to many bridges.  It wouldn't do to have the main man be so incompetent if it were a concocted plan.

Disarm the smartest ones by making it appear you are incompetent.

Gavin was perhaps planted by the DEEP STATE that created Bitcoin. He may be a CIA agent (and not even know it!).

[Peter R]

Even if there were only 10 miners in the world, as long as:

Sorry to now say that makes you a certified idiot. I've lost the respect I had for you. You appear to be an engineer with a calculator in your pocket who is clueless about society.

An engineer with no perspective is very dangerous.

https://twitter.com/NickSzabo4/status/610654279775461376

He is saying that 9 decentralized nodes are better 10,000 nodes which are run by 1 node.

He is saying nothing about the virtues of a network with 9 nodes.

Duh.

How many nodes and miners do you think we need to be decentralized and why?  

What does the word "decentralized" mean to you?

How would you measure the network's degree of decentralization?

[cypherdoc]

growth, esp that of smartphones, is all part of the future:

http://ben-evans.com/benedictevans/2015/6/19/presentation-mobile-is-eating-the-world

[TPTB_need_war]

part of the reason ppl like Carlton think i'm over the top in this block size debate is that they don't realize i predicted a conflict like this would arise back in October when Blockstream first announced themselves and published their whitepaper.  i said then that SC's were a financial conflict and that other changes to Bitcoin Core could also be shelved that might compete with SC's.  of course, at the time, i couldn't have imagined exactly what that exact conflict would be.  turns out it is now the block size limit.   and it might be just the first thing.  tomorrow it could be something else that doesn't get developed that competes with SC's.

as a result of feeling i've been proven correct in my suspicions, yes, i have been vocal about supporting Gavin's changes.  especially since Gavin isn't confrontational and stays in the background while the Blockstream guys have been out in force.  i think he's on the correct path, has a good plan, and does not have a financial conflict.  yes, i trust Gavin way more than the other guys and it amazes me that ppl think he is plotting anything.  i'm convinced the major players such as exchanges, merchants, and others have gone to him to ask for the block size increase to increase user adoption.  it only makes sense that they would want growth.

That is reasonable explanation.

And I also noted the conflict of interest upthread.

However, some facts:

1) Bitcoin Core can't scale decentralized unless we scrap the entire consensus network design. Patches like IBLT are just distributed centralization.

2) Blockstream's pegged BTC side chains can't be stopped because they have already implemented the alpha on the test bed with federated servers.

So thus you have to present a cogent argument for how YOU or exponential block size scaling are accomplishing anything good.

[cypherdoc]

Financial disclaimers:

Hearn:  self employed, Lighthouse open source project
Gavin:  research MIT institutional salary
cypherdoc:  coins
Maxwell, Back, Wiullie, Friendenbach, Corallo, Togami, Timon:  Blockstream salaries, stock options, $21M of investor money

no matter how you cut it, the first 3 don't have traditional financial conflicts as defined in the "real" world.

[TPTB_need_war]

How many nodes and miners do you think we need to be decentralized and why?  

What does the word "decentralized" mean to you?

How would you measure the network's degree of decentralization?

Good questions.

It is not the number, but the quality of the network that being a full node can be ephemeral with the resources of a home computer and a home internet connection.

The reason is due to the nature of political power and society.

So thus I've also defined the metric.

My stance is counter to that which Satoshi predicted. And true Bitcoin Core is not designed to achieve my metric, unless you limit transactions by block size.

[Peter R]

- the system remains open such that if I feel really really strongly about it, that I can run a node and mine too

You wouldn't have enough hashrate to have any impact against a network with only 10 miners. Duh.

You're missing the game theory behind what keeps bitcoin secure, which is probably why you're so convinced that it will fail.  For example, you said a new entrant wouldn't have enough hashrate to compete.  However, if it requires a lot of hash rate for that new entrant to compete, then that means the system is very likely not centralized.  The reason is that if the miners formed a cartel (and bitcoin became centralized), then they would all lower their hashrates to earn a greater profit.  But by doing so, they would invite competition from new members that aren't in the cartel (b/c suddenly it's profitable for new miners to join).  

TLDR: I believe bitcoin will remain decentralized if it remains possible for participants to freely join the network and mine (i.e., it remains a dynamic-membership multi-party signature (DMMS) consensus scheme).

[TPTB_need_war]

I dont see it like that, I see Gmaxwell plowing ahead with his SideChains with full intent to implement the change to Bitcoin regardless of introducing new protocol intensives to take transactions off chain and the resulting economic consequence, this very action is a hostile takeover by Blockstream.

that said, it's always been that no one can force users to use a modified version of Bitcoin if development becomes centralized, saying "it'll never happen it's oven-source, we'll just fork the code". well its now centralized, Gmaxwell has been very vocal in promoting the fact that Gavin has no voice in the development of Bitcoin and is in the minority, and is quick to say he is not a Lead Developer, while technical true, he has taken on a self proclaimed role of Lead Scientist, in my view a more general and holistic vantage point.

there is lots of misinformation out there, and I don't see the masses getting involved in this debate, just looking at the pols people keep talking about, there are at most a few 100 or so voters, while Coinbase boast over 3M individual wallets that's a lot of early adopters invested in Bitcoin - ( i imagine that is 1 or 2 wallets per user) and we are not seeing them push for the changes.

at the end of the day Bitcoin incentives are driven by the economic majority, not a centralized core group, the economic majority will promote the incentive sachems that are the most beneficial to the largest audience to maximize there return. even miners shouldn't be have a voice like they do in this debate.

What you don't see that is in a consensus network where the transaction is the full node (i.e. the majority are the miners), then all the issues (including scaling) fall away.

And the only way to get there, is with a pegged side chain.

If what I stated was already published and proven, then you who are resisting SCs are the obstacles to progress.

This is why you don't understand me. Because you can't (yet) see what I see because it hasn't been described publicly (yet).

[tvbcof]

Financial disclaimers:

Hearn:  self employed, Lighthouse open source project
Gavin:  research MIT institutional salary
cypherdoc:  coins
Maxwell, Back, Wiullie, Friendenbach, Corallo, Togami, Timon:  Blockstream salaries, stock options, $21M of investor money

no matter how you cut it, the first 3 don't have traditional financial conflicts as defined in the "real" world.

Seems to me that Andresen and Hearn were two of the most active people in the now defunct Bitcoin Foundation that took hundreds of thousand (if not millions) of dollars out of people's pockets before the organization ended up broke and at the bottom of a smoking crater.  I don't especially believe that this was a purposeful scam but I don't rule it out.  One way or another it is kind of a blight.

There is nothing mysterious about a group of the most highly regarded and active developers in the ecosystem joining forces to work on a promising long-term solution to a problem with Bitcoin that everyone of them could probably see as the read the whitepaper for the first time.

Basically your 'conflict of interest' dog just doesn't hunt.  That is reflected in your poll which is looking more flaccid by the day as people wise up.  You folks need to go back to the drawing board and figure out a new strategy.  Good luck with that...sidechains are getting closer day by day.  tic-toc-tic-toc

[TPTB_need_war]

- the system remains open such that if I feel really really strongly about it, that I can run a node and mine too

You wouldn't have enough hashrate to have any impact against a network with only 10 miners. Duh.

You're missing the game theory behind what keeps bitcoin secure, which is probably why you're so convinced that it will fail.  For example, you said a new entrant wouldn't have enough hashrate to compete.  However, if it requires a lot of hash rate for that new entrant to compete, then that means the system is very likely not centralized.

Duh. Exactly that was _my_ point if you argue there will be only 10 miners.

I am not going to waste my entire day as you drag me into more nonsense debate.

The reason is that if the miners formed a cartel (and bitcoin became centralized), then they would all lower their hashrates to earn a greater profit.

Not necessarily. You always assume Nash equilibrium and are myopic about out-of-band incentives, such as the incentive to apply censorship (KYC compliance) and other payoffs that can come from that.

[TPTB_need_war]

My god, cheezes christ, what a socialist pile of crap.

I can personally guarantee that bitcoin with the crucial coin limit will continue, even if I have to run my own miner and wait decennia before the difficulty adjusts. More likely though, I will be joined by at least a percentage of current miners, meaning the system will continue with the slight annoyance of having confirmation times of a day or so. Have your fork, the inflatacoin will go the way of the fiats.

And without SCs, your hard limit fork will be absolutely worthless in exchange value.

I think you need to review a thread I wrote as AnonyMint:

No Money Exists Without the Majority

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=226033.0