Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[brg444]

To be clear, this is one of 3+ possible proposals in the works among Blockstream developers. There is no "party line" where the company can tell the developers what they should believe.

There is a lot of merit to Pieter's draft BIP. We should openly discuss it in public alongside the other draft BIP's.

Others are in favor of an entirely different approach to increasing the block size that would more in line with actual transaction demand while making no guesses about what things will look like in the future. This proposal is a bit more complex and is currently under development. I'm personally working on getting this stuff written down so it would be easier for everyone to understand, to enable developing this approach with the global developer community.

Some hope the drama can calm down to allow for a return to a constructive, collaborative technical process as is common in Open Source development. The recent environment of incivility and personal attacks has led them to be highly reluctant to agree to any controversial changes while under duress. A meta-solution in favor of bringing professionalism and academic discipline to the questions surrounding Bitcoin Scalability is currently under proposal between developers, academics and commercial stakeholders. Hopefully an announcement about this will be ready by early next week.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3f5yyr/block_size_according_to_technological_growth_by/ctlw6zx

#teamblockstream

[1713952924]

1713952924

[1713952924]

1713952924

[brg444]

for example; Todd has 0 pts while Gavin has 20 upvotes and MOA is just off in his own thuggish world.  i'd bet Todd has even downvotes for this by now.

I CAN'T!!! 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

So some carefulness is not wasted.  We will succeed simply by not failing.  The seeds of success are sown into the fabric of the Bitcoin code and architecture.

No, there is competition from altcoins to consider. If we leave 99% of the market on the table because of ultraconservatism about blocksize, we let an altcoin have all that, and Bitcoin gets swept by the wayside. And guess which one ends up more decentralized.

The supposed conservatism or carefulness in keeping the 1MB cap (or growing it only slowly) is entirely illusory. The only position that can conceivably be called conservative is one where the blocksize cap is set as high as is likely to be feasible. The conservative option isn't "do nothing." The conservative option is to set the cap almost as high as we think any competitor will be able to feasibly do so. The network effect will take care of the slop factor, but not if that slop factor is a Texas mile because we didn't even bother aiming.

Patience...  Bitcoin is still in beta, its so young.  Lets give it the chance to grow up without breaking it along the way.

Over-patience is the same as breaking it. The result is the same because competition is ever-present. Network effect means small mistakes and sub-optimalities are forgiven, and often even substantial ones, but gigantic ones cannot be. An altcoin with orders of magnitude bigger block capabilities, able to scale on the fly because there is no limit, and experiencing no problems because the conjectured issues turned out to be frivolous...that's a tough cookie for the network effect to swallow.

No one cares about an altcoin boasting 5x Bitcoin's capacity...because it's not Bitcoin. But if it boasts 100x Bitcoin's capacity, that's a game-changer. We have to at least get in the ballpark. Watching from the sidelines is not going to cut it, and I refuse to call that in any way conservative, patient, or careful.

[Melbustus]

...
Network effect means small mistakes and sub-optimalities are forgiven, and often even substantial ones, but gigantic ones cannot be. An altcoin with orders of magnitude bigger block capabilities, able to scale on the fly because there is no limit, and experiencing no problems because the conjectured issues turned out to be frivolous...that's a tough cookie for the network effect to swallow.
...

Well said.

[Adrian-x]

1. Hard block size unlimited.

2. Accept as valid blocks of size up to X for the time being, X decided by consensus amongst miners and developers and individuals in the community, re the current block size discussion.

3. Produce max Y size blocks for the time being, value of Y (less than X) decided by a (per def benevolent, since it is voluntary) cartel of miners.

4. Each individual miner produces blocks of max size Z, Z decided egoistically to maximize profit, to avoid technical problems and to minimize risk of orphaning, dependent on his trust of the real consensus of the previous points.

tl;dr no hard limit.

it all works so long as the size is a rule set by operation cooperationand not collusion, nodes and miners should be free to break from the pack.

[Erdogan]

If you would believe reddit, everyone is running an XT node right about now

http://xtnodes.com/

 

1.5 percent.

Hello?

"1.5 percent."  I LOL'ed.  

You said "everyone", the link you posted said 93 of 6199. What is your problem? Tourettes syndrome?

[Adrian-x]

I'm curious why some people in this thread support the removal of a blocksize cap when Gavin himself suggests this is not conceivable.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3f5yyr/block_size_according_to_technological_growth_by/ctlqzs7

your reading too much into iCE propaganda, I think Gavin has had bad ideas, that doesn't make all his ideas bad, I'd like to think everyone here looks at the facts for everything and doesn't just follow blindly based on history.

[brg444]

You said "everyone", the link you posted said 93 of 6199. What is your problem? Tourettes syndrome?

Are you seriously that dense.

I am the one who said everyone.

And it was a joke, referring to the Mike&Gavin army on reddit apparently all "switching my node to XT". From the echo chamber over there it would seem "the community" is near consensus  

[Erdogan]

You said "everyone", the link you posted said 93 of 6199. What is your problem? Tourettes syndrome?

Are you seriously that dense.

I am the one who said everyone.

And it was a joke, referring to the Mike&Gavin army on reddit apparently all "switching my node to XT". From the echo chamber over there it would seem "the community" is near consensus  

So I was confused about who said what. Both nonsense, please consider using a sarc end tag.

[justusranvier]

I'm curious why some people in this thread support the removal of a blocksize cap when Gavin himself suggests this is not conceivable.

Not everyone is susceptible to the Hegelian dialectic that's being employed here.

[iCEBREAKER]

I'm curious why some people in this thread support the removal of a blocksize cap when Gavin himself suggests this is not conceivable.

Not everyone is susceptible to the Hegelian dialectic that's being employed here.

(Fake) Problem - full blocks

(Astroturf) Reaction - "ZOMG Bitcoin is choking to death"

(In-Q-Tel) Solution - Gavinblocks

Hidden variable - trade off between TPS and security

[cypherdoc]

estimates are going lower and lower:

Prepare for gold prices to plunge...as low as $350

http://money.cnn.com/2015/07/30/investing/gold-prices-could-drop-to-350/index.html?category=home

[tvbcof]

estimates are going lower and lower:

Prepare for gold prices to plunge...as low as $350

http://money.cnn.com/2015/07/30/investing/gold-prices-could-drop-to-350/index.html?category=home

Ya, CNN told me to go all in in Bitcoin in 2011.  Best advice I ever got.  I don't remember if it was them who had my buying PMs back around 2001.  Probably it was since they are so awsome and have made so many average Joes so much money with their great advice over the years.

[OROBTC]

...

cypherdoc

At least you, TPTB and Martin Armstrong agree on something (price of gold going way down).    How unusual, how utterly rare...

Must be a Blue Moon happening soon or something.  Or TEOTWAWKI?

[solex]

there is competition from altcoins to consider. If we leave 99% of the market on the table because of ultraconservatism about blocksize, we let an altcoin have all that, and Bitcoin gets swept by the wayside. And guess which one ends up more decentralized.

This important comment made me think that it's a good time to review just how Bitcoin has fared against the altcoins since a useful comparison has been made possible by coinmarketcap. Using the Wayback machine I got one data-point (aggregate values in USD) for each month as close to the 9th (first one) as possible. The chart below shows Bitcoin's monetary base (or market cap) as a percentage of all cryptocurrency excluding Ripple.



There is a very slight trend down (black), exacerbated by the recent LTC ramp, probably pre-halving noise as smooth says. I have shown the y-axis from 0% to avoid the scarier looking trend when base-lined at 80%.

This chart is interesting because it shows that despite the acrimonious 1MB debate it is not yet having a serious effect on price, and similarly the 1MB is not yet crippling user volumes and driving up usage (and therefore enhanced value) of alternative crypto.

Yesterday, we had a BIP [77? 103?] from Pieter, which is extremely welcome and the first official solution from the 1MBers in Core Dev. Unfortunately, this BIP pursues minimal change, with 2MB blocks only in 2021 and 10MB blocks (effectively the same capacity as Dogecoin today), in 2030. Personally, I think this will leave a severe bottleneck in Bitcoin throughput by about Q2/Q3 2016 and the major risk of a sharp change down in trend in the chart above.

[sgbett]

Fully parsed, what you are claiming is

The simple solution is to remove the artificial cap hard fork Bitcoin.

Do you realize how naive that makes you look?

If you truly understood your own position then you would argue it instead of just railing at people who might have an opposing view. Call me some more names, it's really helping the credibility of your argument.

What *is* bloat? (apart from the intentional choice of hyperbolic word). Can you put a value on what is considered bloated? Can you confidently say that your idea of what constitute bloat is some world wide standard?

You put words in my mouth, then claim those invented words make me look stupid. In fact this only serves to make you look even more desperate. if I didn't understand the maxim, I would not be able to point out just how incoherent your thought process must be if you are attempting to equate feature-set with size-of-data. I understand the difference between feature-set and data-size, do you? I'll bet you do. So, don't even for one second pretend you think that systems with more data are inherently more complex than systems with less data.

Do you truly believe they are the same thing or are you again being disingenuous in order to try and maintain your tenuous argument that effectively 'changing a config setting' is somehow more complicated than developing a whole new platform and all the interfaces necessary to communicate.

Its about as elegant as your debating skill....

Fully parsed your argument against Gavin's fix for CVE-2013-2292 seems to be, don't do it because it increases complexity. Again disingenuous or actually not very smart?

Then finally you try to create further confusion between the feature-set of software vs its deployment. To be clear, what is being kept simple is the software. I'm interested to know though just exactly what it is that is complex about the hard fork. I can think of other words that might apply - contentious, unpredictable even undesirable - depending on your viewpoint - but not complex. You put the new release up, and those that want it deploy it. Those that don't do not.

Interestingly those words that apply to the hard fork, could quite easily be used to describe intentionally restricting transaction growth by refusing to update the max block size. So in that respect both 'solutions' are equal.

In another very important respect, they are not equal. Releasing a version of bitcoin core with an increased block size allows for true consensus from the user base. Refusing to do so, is enforcing the view of some core-devs. That's what is despicable.

Thankfully in time, once the details have been ironed out and devs eventually accept some form of block size increase schedule (and they will, however much you cling to your delusion) the hard fork can happen in core, and then the miners can have the final say in what goes forward. If everyone sticks on 1MB coin then you get your wish! I'll send you a cookie, iced with the words "Well done you!".

I think though, that is what you are terrified of. That you know there is actually no way in hell the block size will stay at 1MB, but you are so married to your position that you can't let go and will say anything to defend it. It comes across in your posts.

"Truly understood?"  The True Scotsman called and asks you return his kilt ASAP.   

Fret and mewl more about being called mean names, your endless concern-meta scoldings and finger-wagging process objections (we already know you are afraid to "fight features") are really helping the credibility of your argument.   

The only way to remove the 1MB cap is via a hard fork.  Thus my parsing of your absurd assertion regarding "The Simple Solution^TM" is logically correct.

To quote Hearn, "don't pretend any of this stuff is obvious."

You asked "what is bloat?"  Bloat is Gavincoin, with its undesirable sacrifice of security for (the feature of) MOAR TPS.

I made no generic claims about whether "systems with more data are inherently more complex than systems with less data."

That depends on the inheritances (ie data dependencies or non-dependencies) of the system in question.  Usenet?  No.  Bitcoin?  Yes.  Your retreat into generalities is noted, with all due scorn.   

Raising the block size, if done responsibly with a view to present entailments (100k max tx) and forward implications (Future Gavin vs 2015 Gavin), is not as obvious as 'changing a config setting.'  Again, "don't pretend any of this stuff is obvious."  DoS blocks are only one example of why Bitcoin is only now scaling to 1MB, and why massive order-of-magnitude jumps are hubris.

I want to enable Layer 2+ using the minimum of additional functionality in Layer 1.  You want to stuff all of Layer 2+ into Layer 1.  It doesn't take a PhD in linguistics to see who is proposing bloat.   

Funny how you try to throw the term "eventually" in my face, when I've already said I agree a block size will happen in exactly that timespan.  Quick, pout moar about what a horrible person I am for agreeing with Satoshi!

Layer 1 and Layer 2 has nothing to do with software features, its an arbitrary economic division that you are using to try and confuse the issue. (Or are confused by?).

I think block size increase should be done in good time to stop all of this forced LN/sidechain/alt-coin nonsense you are pimping. If those things are good, and wanted then they will stand on there own merit. Whereas you think we should do it later, after rome is burning.

What is your motive for this?

[cypherdoc]

Hearn

http://a16z.com/2015/07/27/native-bitcoin-apps-open-source-developer-hearn/

[smooth]

cryptocurrency excluding Ripple
...

There is a very slight trend down (black)

Some part of that recent trend is likely that you didn't exclude other Ripple-like assets with economically-misleading market caps such as Stellar.

[cypherdoc]

Hearn

http://a16z.com/2015/07/27/native-bitcoin-apps-open-source-developer-hearn/

That’s why the blocksize topic, which I discussed with Chris [Dixon, on the a16z Podcast] can lead to such vitriolic debates. Forks are not the best way to resolve these disputes, but it may happen anyway because some of the people who have become involved in the years since Satoshi left feel like the decentralization aspect of bitcoin is the end and not a means to an end. Saying “You should use bitcoin because it’s decentralized,” is like saying, “You should use Linux because it’s open source.” That doesn’t mean anything to people. They care about what they can use it for, what can they do with it.

so a great example of this which i've talked about before is core dev's insistence on having anyone with a raspi or a DSL modem being able to run a full node as an ultimate goal for Bitcoin.  as if that somehow is the most important definition of decentralization.  that's ridiculous.  just the sheer difficulty alone of running a full node makes that impossible.  most current Bitcoiner's don't even care to run a full node.  yet that keeps getting held up as a reason against bigger blocks.

i keep asking the Cripplecoiners a simple theoretical question which i never get an answer for:  if everyone in the world used Bitcoin, wouldn't that be a more effective and more secure form of decentralization for Bitcoin's future?  since using Bitcoin is much simpler and affordable than running a full node, shouldn't that be more of a focus for Bitcoin?  it's unrealistic to expect thousands of full nodes to pop around Africa even tho we know fiberoptic cable and smartphones are flooding the region as we speak.  but it is not unrealistic to expect millions of those ppl to be able to use those smartphones to transact in Bitcoin.  so why aren't we prioritizing that vision?  esp since hostile western gvts would find it next to impossible to reach into the depths of Africa and many areas similar to stop individual usage.  and esp since these are the types of ppl who need and who would want to use Bitcoin the most.

[smooth]

i keep asking the Cripplecoiners a simple theoretical question which i never get an answer for:  if everyone in the world used Bitcoin, wouldn't that be a more effective and more secure form of decentralization for Bitcoin's future?

No.

Everyone (more or less) in the world already uses fiat currencies. If Bitcoin isn't decentralized it is pointless.