Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[cypherdoc]

this looks good too:

[1713880752]

1713880752

[1713880752]

1713880752

[1713880752]

1713880752

[1713880752]

1713880752

[impulse]

this looks good too:

Looking even better now, I have not seen the ask side look this thin in quite some time, it will be interesting to see how it fills in.

[iCEBREAKER]

The only way to make software secure, reliable, and fast is to make it small. Fight Features. - Andy Tanenbaum 2004

Oh yeah? So adding complicated stuff like sidechains and lightning network is making bitcoin code smaller?

To the extent those build on top of Bitcoin they aren't adding features to it or making the the core code bigger. If they require changes to the core code or adding new features to it, that's a different matter that needs to be considered carefully.

But if the claim is that sidechains are the 'solution' to the 'problem'. Then you are saying they are part of bitcoin [the ecosystem] whether they are part of core or not.

Increasing block size does not add features *and* it 'solves' the 'problem'. Without introducing any other layers of complexity, or attempting to artificially manipulate the fee economy that is growing organically just as it was always intended.

What frightens me is that the whole thing seems to have turned into a pissing contest.

The fee market isn't a problem right now, the block size is. So why are people trying to pre-emptively fix the fee market in an ass backwards way to address the block size problem.

Nobody is claiming to have predetermined that sidechains (or LN) are necessarily the ENTIRETY of the solution to the scaling problem, only that they are potentially part of it.  Bitcoin is an ongoing bleeding-edge experiment, and we are working with intuition, educated guesses, hypotheses, and prototypes, not off-the-shelf kit in neat little boxes.

Increasing block size does add features (and/or bugs), in the form of higher tps and whatever concomitant other new auto/adaptive regulation mechanisms come along with the eventual solution.  100k max tx size is probably only the first such required adjustment.

And thus, the 100k max tx adjustment neatly destroys your claim that larger blocks do not introduce additional complexity.  More is different; the dose makes the poison...

The Red Queen interpretation, whereby we must change Bitcoin ASAP for the sake of keeping it the same, is absurd.  Moving the tx supply curve with the goal of controlling the range where it intersects that of demand is prima facie centralized market manipulation.  As long as tx fees are absurdly underpriced, in terms of their cost and what users are willing to pay, the fee market is completely broken.  Bitoin's 'free sample/loss leader' viral marketing campaign phase ended with the emergence of omnipresent 'cosmic background spam.'

The "pissing contest" which "frightens" your delicate sensibilities is exactly the "fight" to which Tannenbaum exhorts us, because the "adversarial process is valuable in assuring [features] do not compromise security or reliability."

[iCEBREAKER]

"After 5 years is the 1MB hard-limit the best anti-DoS mechanism that Bitcoin dev can come up with?"
Answer no, because the real anti-DoS protection comes from the consensus dust-limit and fee policy.

False. The dust limit and fee policy are not part of the consensus code (which the 1 MB limit is).

So the answer is in fact yes: There is no other anti-DoS mechanism in the consensus code after 5 years.

Proposing to add one is one possibility. Have at it.

consensus dust-limit and fee policy.

Policy which is observed by a super-majority of nodes is effectively a consensus. Also the message size limit is anti-DoS

That's incorrect, and I think someone (Adam?) recently wrote up some good stuff about the role of "nodes"

In order to matter, policies have to be enforced by either:

1. The node you are using, with respect to your own coins (your own node validates your coins, so you can't be fooled). Of course this only matters if others agree with you, or you have created an altcoin with a userbase of one (useless)

2. All nodes, or essentially all nodes.

"A majority of nodes" accomplishes essentially nothing. That is the entire point of the bitcoin design ("majority of nodes" is not sybil-resistant).

I'm amazed there exist Legendary posters who don't understand the assigned roles and limitations of incentive, consensus, and defection in Bitcoin.  They (IE Solex and Frap.doc) need to spend more type reading up on Bitcoin 101, and less time writing 1000s of misinformed posts from positions of ignorance.

I'd expect this kind of derpy mental diarrhea from a noob:

"After 5 years is Nakamoto Consensus the best governance mechanism that Bitcoin dev can come up with?"

[NewLiberty]

Community and major stakeholders vote for a blocksize increase

Hmmm where did that ever happen  

I sure hope by community and "major stakeholders" you are not referring to reddit and bitcointalk.org

I know! It's only a valid vote if it's conducted under the rules as sanctioned by central control.

Giveen our understand of the situation it could never happen.

The major stakeholders vote for a blocksize increase is just a prediction of the fork to a more distributed code base that supports the original vision of Bitcoin. It is yet to happen it's my opinion that it's a forgone conclusion, we'll have bigger blocks, the vote is just around the corner so you don't need to do much if you feel you have this one in the bag.

Block size has topped this list for as long as.. well, since there was a list.
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Hardfork_Wishlist

If it were easy, it would have been done already.  Patience people....

[ssmc2]

EVERYTHING down, Bitcoin UP 

[iCEBREAKER]

EVERYTHING down, Bitcoin & Monero UP 

^fify

And look, another Monero shill for Frap.doc to expose:

https://github.com/monero-project/bitmonero/commits?author=laanwj   

[cypherdoc]

EVERYTHING down, Bitcoin & Monero UP 

^fify

And look, another Monero shill for Frap.doc to expose:

https://github.com/monero-project/bitmonero/commits?author=laanwj   

don't hold your breath.  Monero isn't going anywhere.

[iCEBREAKER]

EVERYTHING down, Bitcoin & Monero UP 

^fify

And look, another Monero shill for Frap.doc to expose:

https://github.com/monero-project/bitmonero/commits?author=laanwj   

don't hold your breath.  Monero isn't going anywhere.

In a single year, it's gone from nothing to the #6 legitimate coin by market cap (~$5 million).

What makes you think it's now suddenly going to stop moving up the ranks?

[I_bitcoin]

The Red Queen interpretation, whereby we must change Bitcoin ASAP for the sake of keeping it the same, is absurd.  Moving the tx supply curve with the goal of controlling the range where it intersects that of demand is prima facie centralized market manipulation.  As long as tx fees are absurdly underpriced, in terms of their cost and what users are willing to pay, the fee market is completely broken.  Bitoin's 'free sample/loss leader' viral marketing campaign phase ended with the emergence of omnipresent 'cosmic background spam.'

ICEBREAKER, I am not attributing all of the below to you.   Just using your comment as a springboard for some thinking I have been going through over the past few months as tensions increase on block size.

I have heard this statement "tx fees are underpriced"  and "fee market is broken" several times and I still don't get it.    Mainly because the way it gets portrayed is that we must raise fees now vs. let things develop naturally otherwise miners can't stay in business.   When the block reward halves what do you think happens?   My expectation is that miners will still need to pay the bills in fiat so the fiat per BTC ratio will increase.    This increase, by it's very nature, increases the fiat "profit" per transaction fee.   So, if fiat/BTC increases due to reward changes the fees go up from the perspective of a fiat holder.   Heck, I suspect the block reward will be a major factor in driving fiat/BTC ratio until the block reward gets close to the average transaction fee.  .

If anything, we should get the blocksize to the largest rationally supportable size and allow nature to take it's course.   Fees, from a fiat perspective, will go up even if the miners do nothing to prioritize transactions by fee or increase the bitcoin denominated standard fee.    Miners will still make a profit as scarcity drives the fiat/btc ratio and the fee market will continue to develop as a means of preserving scarce resources and preventing spam.   It seems to have done an adequate job so far and this may be the best possible outcome with respect to keeping bitcoin globally relevant.   One of the biggest drivers of adoption we have at our disposal is the fiat/btc ratio. 

There must be something I have been missing in the arguments I see about this.   Where does the above thinking not work?    Thanks ICEBREAKER for letting me borrow your words.

[smooth]

If anything, we should get the blocksize to the largest rationally supportable size

This is exactly where reasonable people differ.

[I_bitcoin]

If anything, we should get the blocksize to the largest rationally supportable size

This is exactly where reasonable people differ.

That is a key word right there "reasonable".  I certainly haven't had any great epiphany as to how to choose the correct size or how to make it a reliably updated thing.   Predictability and anything that removes human consensus making from an ongoing process is what I would favor.   

[cbeast]

EVERYTHING down, Bitcoin & Monero UP 

^fify

And look, another Monero shill for Frap.doc to expose:

https://github.com/monero-project/bitmonero/commits?author=laanwj   

don't hold your breath.  Monero isn't going anywhere.

I would like to see an altcoin that is sufficiently different from Bitcoin see some real long term success. Healthy competition is good. I know it won't happen though because exchanges.

[wpalczynski]

EVERYTHING down, Bitcoin & Monero UP 

^fify

And look, another Monero shill for Frap.doc to expose:

https://github.com/monero-project/bitmonero/commits?author=laanwj   

don't hold your breath.  Monero isn't going anywhere.

I would like to see an altcoin that is sufficiently different from Bitcoin see some real long term success. Healthy competition is good. I know it won't happen though because exchanges.

When the user base grows sufficiently exchanges will take notice.

[smooth]

If anything, we should get the blocksize to the largest rationally supportable size

This is exactly where reasonable people differ.

That is a key word right there "reasonable".  I certainly haven't had any great epiphany as to how to choose the correct size or how to make it a reliably updated thing.   Predictability and anything that removes human consensus making from an ongoing process is what I would favor.   

The only way to remove human consensus from the ongoing process is to leave it exactly the way it is. No changes to the consensus rules ever (MP argument).

That is btw pretty much Wladimir's view. He's not going to back any change that doesn't have human consensus. So you either have human consensus or, removing it from the process, no changes at all.

[cypherdoc]

If anything, we should get the blocksize to the largest rationally supportable size

This is exactly where reasonable people differ.

That is a key word right there "reasonable".  I certainly haven't had any great epiphany as to how to choose the correct size or how to make it a reliably updated thing.   Predictability and anything that removes human consensus making from an ongoing process is what I would favor.  

The only way to remove human consensus from the ongoing process is to leave it exactly the way it is. No changes to the consensus rules ever (MP argument).

That is btw pretty much Wladimir's view. He's not going to back any change that doesn't have human consensus. So you either have human consensus or, removing it from the process, no changes at all.

i wonder what all those guys will say next year when the Blockstream guys want to change the code for SC's and LN if Gavin objects.

[smooth]

If anything, we should get the blocksize to the largest rationally supportable size

This is exactly where reasonable people differ.

That is a key word right there "reasonable".  I certainly haven't had any great epiphany as to how to choose the correct size or how to make it a reliably updated thing.   Predictability and anything that removes human consensus making from an ongoing process is what I would favor.  

The only way to remove human consensus from the ongoing process is to leave it exactly the way it is. No changes to the consensus rules ever (MP argument).

That is btw pretty much Wladimir's view. He's not going to back any change that doesn't have human consensus. So you either have human consensus or, removing it from the process, no changes at all.

i wonder what all those guys will say next year when the Blockstream guys want to change the code for SC's and LN if Gavin objects.

Sidechains can be done with a soft fork, which means all they need to do is sign up miners (and of course find customers who want to use the side chain). It doesn't require a global consensus.

[I_bitcoin]

If anything, we should get the blocksize to the largest rationally supportable size

This is exactly where reasonable people differ.

That is a key word right there "reasonable".  I certainly haven't had any great epiphany as to how to choose the correct size or how to make it a reliably updated thing.   Predictability and anything that removes human consensus making from an ongoing process is what I would favor.  

The only way to remove human consensus from the ongoing process is to leave it exactly the way it is. No changes to the consensus rules ever (MP argument).

That is btw pretty much Wladimir's view. He's not going to back any change that doesn't have human consensus. So you either have human consensus, or removing it, no changes.

I suspect Wladimir was thinking in context of a hardfork vs. context of ongoing blocksize increases chosen by an algorithm.   I might not have seen his specific commentary though so I could be wrong.  It is hard to keep up with all the goings on nowadays.     

I can certainly see how a complete removal of the hardcoded block size limit would be an attractive option.   There are several large systems that have unrestricted scale but are controlled by each individual actor according to their capability.    Bitcoin is much more likely to end up like the big I Internet in this respect than something that everyone can run on their raspberry pi.

With respect to "no changes to consensus rules ever"; that way lies madness  .  I don't see a solution where Bitcoin retains value as a monetary unit or a ledger of record without a blocksize increase.  Lightning and Sidechains are great but they need a strong ledger of record to support them.   Strength requires broad adoption.    Broad adoption requires high TPS.   With Sidechains I suppose you could argue that everyone will just transition out of Bitcoin into something else but that probably won't fly with those bought into the existing ecosystem.   

 

[smooth]

If anything, we should get the blocksize to the largest rationally supportable size

This is exactly where reasonable people differ.

That is a key word right there "reasonable".  I certainly haven't had any great epiphany as to how to choose the correct size or how to make it a reliably updated thing.   Predictability and anything that removes human consensus making from an ongoing process is what I would favor.  

The only way to remove human consensus from the ongoing process is to leave it exactly the way it is. No changes to the consensus rules ever (MP argument).

That is btw pretty much Wladimir's view. He's not going to back any change that doesn't have human consensus. So you either have human consensus, or removing it, no changes.

I suspect Wladimir was thinking in context of a hardfork vs. context of ongoing blocksize increases chosen by an algorithm.   I might not have seen his specific commentary though so I could be wrong.  It is hard to keep up with all the goings on nowadays.     

He was thinking in the context of any hard fork, and specifically rejecting the notion of him "deciding" to implement a hard fork that is contraversial.

You are never going to get human consensus on an unlimited block size to the point where it isn't controversial. Just isn't going to happen.

[solex]

If anything, we should get the blocksize to the largest rationally supportable size

This is exactly where reasonable people differ.

That is a key word right there "reasonable".  I certainly haven't had any great epiphany as to how to choose the correct size or how to make it a reliably updated thing.   Predictability and anything that removes human consensus making from an ongoing process is what I would favor.  

The only way to remove human consensus from the ongoing process is to leave it exactly the way it is. No changes to the consensus rules ever (MP argument).

That is btw pretty much Wladimir's view. He's not going to back any change that doesn't have human consensus. So you either have human consensus or, removing it from the process, no changes at all.

Is this your position too? Because the way Bitcoin is today with a protocol level transaction cap so small it is too crippled to ever become a significant part of the world economy. A cap too small even for LN to provide much scaling because LN needs the capability to close a lot of payment channels simultaneously. SC is not a scaling solution unless Pieter is wrong.
Which then leaves Monero as a lifeboat where I recall some recent post about it having massive scaling capacity, no 1MB rubbish for them!

Icebreaker is transparent like an ice-cube when it comes to campaigning for a crippled Bitcoin, clearly so he can execute a massive Monero put during a time of Bitcoin crisis and Monero pump, hoping to catch the reverse trade when the 1MB is finally fixed and quadruple his coinage accordingly.