Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[smooth]

There is no such things like Bitcoin with 100x capacity. The security trade-off is disproportionate with the incremental amount of txs you can process.

I basically agree with this. The reason there is no consensus in the developer community is (probably) not that some of them are Compromised and secretly working for banks to undermine Bitcoin, it is that there are very real tradeoffs and the best answer is not at all obvious.

There is likewise no obvious answer to how make an altcoin that has 100x Bitcoin's capacity without compromising on something else important in the process. Maybe there is an answer but it isn't obvious and if an altcoin manages to do it, maybe that altcoin perfectly well deserves to win, because it will have accomplished something that is extremely difficulty and important, possibly as or more important than satoshi's original accomplishment, and it will have done it first.

I agree with ZB that getting good at hard forking would be valuable, but I see less chance of that realistically happening than waking up tomorrow to find out that the Bitcoin developers have announced an Ultimate Solution to the block size question. As hard as blocksize is, hard forking safely is harder.

So you want an altcoin, running basically the same technology as bitcoin, to try to make a 1MB+ block first, and if it works, you want that altcoin to succeed and not bitcoin? Wow, that was some real safety first thinking.

No, you missed the point entirely. I don't think an altcoin running the same technology as Bitcoin, can deliver 100x the capacity.

To do that would require something different and we don't even know what it is.

As far as modest increases, in line with hardware (mostly bandwidth since that seems to be the slowest-progressing at the moment, but I'm not sure that is stable), I think Bitcoin should do that, so there is no room for an altcoin there.

[1714066081]

1714066081

[1714066081]

1714066081

[1714066081]

1714066081

[1714066081]

1714066081

[Erdogan]

There is no such things like Bitcoin with 100x capacity. The security trade-off is disproportionate with the incremental amount of txs you can process.

I basically agree with this. The reason there is no consensus in the developer community is (probably) not that some of them are Compromised and secretly working for banks to undermine Bitcoin, it is that there are very real tradeoffs and the best answer is not at all obvious.

There is likewise no obvious answer to how make an altcoin that has 100x Bitcoin's capacity without compromising on something else important in the process. Maybe there is an answer but it isn't obvious and if an altcoin manages to do it, maybe that altcoin perfectly well deserves to win, because it will have accomplished something that is extremely difficulty and important, possibly as or more important than satoshi's original accomplishment, and it will have done it first.

I agree with ZB that getting good at hard forking would be valuable, but I see less chance of that realistically happening than waking up tomorrow to find out that the Bitcoin developers have announced an Ultimate Solution to the block size question. As hard as blocksize is, hard forking safely is harder.

So you want an altcoin, running basically the same technology as bitcoin, to try to make a 1MB+ block first, and if it works, you want that altcoin to succeed and not bitcoin? Wow, that was some real safety first thinking.

No, you missed the point entirely. I don't think an altcoin running the same technology as Bitcoin, can deliver 100x the capacity.

To do that would require something different and we don't even know what it is.

As far as modest increases, in line with hardware (mostly bandwidth since that seems to be the slowest-progressing at the moment, but I'm not sure that is stable), I think Bitcoin should do that, so there is no room for an altcoin there.

So you are in the largeblock (1MB+) camp. Did I understand you correctly? If so, I think you should go for 1MB+ blocks, not 1MB blocks.

[Erdogan]

I just want bigger blocks. Hard fork, hard fork to infinity with soft limit back to 2 MB, round keg into a square hole, rewrite the system in fortran, ip over avian carriers. Implement the evil bit. Whatever it takes.

If people mostly can agree on hard max blocksize of 1100000 bytes, I applaud that too. It should be quite safe.

[smooth]

There is no such things like Bitcoin with 100x capacity. The security trade-off is disproportionate with the incremental amount of txs you can process.

I basically agree with this. The reason there is no consensus in the developer community is (probably) not that some of them are Compromised and secretly working for banks to undermine Bitcoin, it is that there are very real tradeoffs and the best answer is not at all obvious.

There is likewise no obvious answer to how make an altcoin that has 100x Bitcoin's capacity without compromising on something else important in the process. Maybe there is an answer but it isn't obvious and if an altcoin manages to do it, maybe that altcoin perfectly well deserves to win, because it will have accomplished something that is extremely difficulty and important, possibly as or more important than satoshi's original accomplishment, and it will have done it first.

I agree with ZB that getting good at hard forking would be valuable, but I see less chance of that realistically happening than waking up tomorrow to find out that the Bitcoin developers have announced an Ultimate Solution to the block size question. As hard as blocksize is, hard forking safely is harder.

So you want an altcoin, running basically the same technology as bitcoin, to try to make a 1MB+ block first, and if it works, you want that altcoin to succeed and not bitcoin? Wow, that was some real safety first thinking.

No, you missed the point entirely. I don't think an altcoin running the same technology as Bitcoin, can deliver 100x the capacity.

To do that would require something different and we don't even know what it is.

As far as modest increases, in line with hardware (mostly bandwidth since that seems to be the slowest-progressing at the moment, but I'm not sure that is stable), I think Bitcoin should do that, so there is no room for an altcoin there.

So you are in the largeblock (1MB+) camp. Did I understand you correctly? If so, I think you should go for 1MB+ blocks, not 1MB blocks.

I support modest increases in line with hardware improvements (until and unless software/protocol improvements are made to allow even larger blocks to be supported safely). That's probably something like 2-3 MB at this point. I don't support automatic increases to the moon or removing the limit or anything radical like that.

[sidhujag]

There is no such things like Bitcoin with 100x capacity. The security trade-off is disproportionate with the incremental amount of txs you can process.

I basically agree with this. The reason there is no consensus in the developer community is (probably) not that some of them are Compromised and secretly working for banks to undermine Bitcoin, it is that there are very real tradeoffs and the best answer is not at all obvious.

There is likewise no obvious answer to how make an altcoin that has 100x Bitcoin's capacity without compromising on something else important in the process. Maybe there is an answer but it isn't obvious and if an altcoin manages to do it, maybe that altcoin perfectly well deserves to win, because it will have accomplished something that is extremely difficulty and important, possibly as or more important than satoshi's original accomplishment, and it will have done it first.

I agree with ZB that getting good at hard forking would be valuable, but I see less chance of that realistically happening than waking up tomorrow to find out that the Bitcoin developers have announced an Ultimate Solution to the block size question. As hard as blocksize is, hard forking safely is harder.

So you want an altcoin, running basically the same technology as bitcoin, to try to make a 1MB+ block first, and if it works, you want that altcoin to succeed and not bitcoin? Wow, that was some real safety first thinking.

No, you missed the point entirely. I don't think an altcoin running the same technology as Bitcoin, can deliver 100x the capacity.

To do that would require something different and we don't even know what it is.

As far as modest increases, in line with hardware (mostly bandwidth since that seems to be the slowest-progressing at the moment, but I'm not sure that is stable), I think Bitcoin should do that, so there is no room for an altcoin there.

So you are in the largeblock (1MB+) camp. Did I understand you correctly? If so, I think you should go for 1MB+ blocks, not 1MB blocks.

I support modest increases in line with hardware improvements (until and unless software/protocol improvements are made to allow even larger blocks to be supported safely). That's probably something like 2-3 MB at this point. I don't support automatic increases to the moon or removing the limit or anything radical like that.

Once u start u can't stop

[Erdogan]

Support from an unexpected camp:

Within our mandate, the bitcoin community is ready to do whatever it takes to expand the bitcoin blocksize. Even if we have to implement the evil bit. Believe me, it will be enough.

Mario Draghi

[sickpig]

Support from an unexpected camp:

Within our mandate, the bitcoin community is ready to do whatever it takes to expand the bitcoin blocksize. Even if we have to implement the evil bit. Believe me, it will be enough.

Mario Draghi

sarcasm?

[Erdogan]

Support from an unexpected camp:

Within our mandate, the bitcoin community is ready to do whatever it takes to expand the bitcoin blocksize. Even if we have to implement the evil bit. Believe me, it will be enough.

Mario Draghi

sarcasm?

Yes.

[brg444]

I support modest increases in line with hardware improvements (until and unless software/protocol improvements are made to allow even larger blocks to be supported safely). That's probably something like 2-3 MB at this point. I don't support automatic increases to the moon or removing the limit or anything radical like that.

For the record this is mostly my POV as well.

[cypherdoc]

I support modest increases in line with hardware improvements (until and unless software/protocol improvements are made to allow even larger blocks to be supported safely). That's probably something like 2-3 MB at this point. I don't support automatic increases to the moon or removing the limit or anything radical like that.

For the record this is mostly my POV as well.

Then  shut the hell up with your MP pronouncements and references to crap articles like yesterday's.

[brg444]

I support modest increases in line with hardware improvements (until and unless software/protocol improvements are made to allow even larger blocks to be supported safely). That's probably something like 2-3 MB at this point. I don't support automatic increases to the moon or removing the limit or anything radical like that.

For the record this is mostly my POV as well.

Then  shut the hell up with your MP pronouncements and references to crap articles like yesterday's.

 

You woke up in a bad mood today? Your maid refused to make you breakfast? 1% life must be stressful heh 

I certainly won't "shut the hell up" when retards like you are championing lifting the block size limit entirely as some sort of rational opinion.

[cypherdoc]

I support modest increases in line with hardware improvements (until and unless software/protocol improvements are made to allow even larger blocks to be supported safely). That's probably something like 2-3 MB at this point. I don't support automatic increases to the moon or removing the limit or anything radical like that.

For the record this is mostly my POV as well.

Then  shut the hell up with your MP pronouncements and references to crap articles like yesterday's.

 

You woke up in a bad mood today? Your maid refused to make you breakfast? 1% life must be stressful heh 

I certainly won't "shut the hell up" when retards like you are championing lifting the block size limit entirely as some sort of rational opinion.

Nah, I just get tired of little kids being inconsistent and constantly whining to be argumentative and trying to appear knowledgeable.

[cypherdoc]

talk about getting rekt.  i prefer the word "spanked" really.  and he confirms exactly what i said the moment gmax made that stupid reference a few days ago:


Thomas Zander via bitcoin-dev
2 days ago
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Report
I have just been around for 2 years or so, and its interesting to see you two
argue and give links to the past conversations.

But do realize that if you argue in public about content that is easy to read
by anyone that you have to double check your memory fits the facts.
And I feel you skipped that this time...

>Post by Gregory Maxwell via bitcoin-dev
(The same message also mentions that smart contracts can be used to
create trustless trade with off-chain systems;
As well, later in that
thread: "it will be much easier if you can freely use all the space
you need without worrying about paying fees for expensive space in
Bitcoin's chain.")

Hmm... A DNS record is much much bigger than a single bitcoin transaction has
space for.
I don't think you can take his quote out of context. The thread shows that
having a full domain-registry DB on chain is what he was explaining doesn't fit
with Bitcoin.
So Satoshi just explains that a rich database shouldn't live on the
blockchain. Similarly with the quote you made before;
"Piling every proof-of-work quorum system in the world into one
dataset doesn't scale."
It just fights the stupid idea of sharing the blockchain space with tons of
global databases.

Please re-read the whole thread as it really doesn't support your view that
Satoshi argued that somehow decentralization would be protected by limiting
the size of the chain.
--
Thomas Zander

in other words, Satoshi's post doesn't in any way invalidate his original vision of a Visa like payment system.

[brg444]

in other words, Satoshi's post doesn't in any way invalidate his original vision of a Visa like payment system.

Fine, well then find a solution and make it work instead of "whining"

[cypherdoc]

Oh, and one other thing to substantiate what satoshi was actually saying. This is how Namecoin came about as a merge mined solution as opposed to an onchain one.

Oh, and I always knew I was registered here on BCT before gmax.

[cypherdoc]

in other words, Satoshi's post doesn't in any way invalidate his original vision of a Visa like payment system.

Fine, well then find a solution and make it work instead of "whining"

Kid Troll.

has a ring to it.

[iCEBREAKER]

There is no such things like Bitcoin with 100x capacity. The security trade-off is disproportionate with the incremental amount of txs you can process.

But, but, but...

Masternodes are 10,000X more secure than Bitcoin *AND* have 1000X the capacity.

I know this is true, and definitely not bad crypto or snake oil, because I read it in the Dash thread (which is definitely not a cargo cult):

Why does the network have so much new capacity with this release ?

IX capacity has always been better than PoW capacity, as you're not having to wait for the whole lumbering Proof-of-Waste farce, you're getting consensus from a much smaller group of nodes.

Without PoW consensus I feel like this is becoming dangerous territory: If the subset of elected IX-nodes is small enough, wouldn't someone like Otoh with over 600 MNs have a good chance that a TX is entirely in his domain? What would stop an attacker from reversing an IX-tx before it hits the miners, when all consensus nodes are controlled by one person?

You have it exactly backwards, MN subsetting is tens of thousands of times more secure than PoW.

If there are 600 compromised nodes out of 3000, and you need 10 of those 3000 to beat the system, the chances that all of the 10 needed nodes for any one IX will be among the 600 compromised nodes are miniscule.

There's a reason hierarchical structures arise in nature and society - efficiency. Societal hierarchies are easy targets for compromise because they are essentially static, they provide fixed targets. Pooled mining is a good example of an this, it's a vulnerability, not an asset.

Overlay networks like Masternodes are a fluid hierarchy and vastly more resilient to attack.

Who is John Frum?   

[Erdogan]

A hard limit, to some of you, seems to be only consensus written into the running code of the nodes. But, anyone can modify his node as he pleases. The repository is not really protected, because anyone can clone it, modify it, and even offer the modification as a branch. That is how git works, by the way, but the crucial thing is that the software is avaiable, not secret, the essence of being free software.

So there is no fundamental difference between a relative consensus using code, and no coded limit and relative consensus using discourse over the social media which includes this medium, or other out of band channels.

[notme]

A hard limit, to some of you, seems to be only consensus written into the running code of the nodes. But, anyone can modify his node as he pleases. The repository is not really protected, because anyone can clone it, modify it, and even offer the modification as a branch. That is how git works, by the way, but the crucial thing is that the software is avaiable, not secret, the essence of being free software.

So there is no fundamental difference between a relative consensus using code, and no coded limit and relative consensus using discourse over the social media which includes this medium, or other out of band channels.

If there is no difference, why are we debating? Why don't the miners just raise the limit?

Oh yeah, because that would break all clients that haven't been updated.  This would fracture the ecosystem.  There would suddenly be 2 blockchains called Bitcoin.

The difference is that as long as a coded limit exists, despite all our efforts to eliminate centralization, we still need a centralized place to communicate when consensus has been reached so that everyone can adjust.

Eliminating the limit would arguably reduce the need for centralized communication, but the same argument could be made for any loosening of the consensus rules.

Unfortunately, eliminating the limit would open up the existing code bases to several of DOS attacks. If we really want to go that way, we need to make sure that all the software can handle blocks that won't fit in memory + swap.  There are also likely other technical issues that would need to be addressed, and the only way to tease them all out is a ton of code reading and testing.  When software is written, constants are treated as assumptions, and when that assumption changes there is a risk of the previous logic breaking down.

[Erdogan]

A hard limit, to some of you, seems to be only consensus written into the running code of the nodes. But, anyone can modify his node as he pleases. The repository is not really protected, because anyone can clone it, modify it, and even offer the modification as a branch. That is how git works, by the way, but the crucial thing is that the software is avaiable, not secret, the essence of being free software.

So there is no fundamental difference between a relative consensus using code, and no coded limit and relative consensus using discourse over the social media which includes this medium, or other out of band channels.

If there is no difference, why are we debating? Why don't the miners just raise the limit?

Oh yeah, because that would break all clients that haven't been updated.  This would fracture the ecosystem.  There would suddenly be 2 blockchains called Bitcoin.

The difference is that as long as a coded limit exists, despite all our efforts to eliminate centralization, we still need a centralized place to communicate when consensus has been reached so that everyone can adjust.

Eliminating the limit would arguably reduce the need for centralized communication, but the same argument could be made for any loosening of the consensus rules.

Unfortunately, eliminating the limit would open up the existing code bases to several of DOS attacks. If we really want to go that way, we need to make sure that all the software can handle blocks that won't fit in memory + swap.  There are also likely other technical issues that would need to be addressed, and the only way to tease them all out is a ton of code reading and testing.  When software is written, constants are treated as assumptions, and when that assumption changes there is a risk of the previous logic breaking down.

I will answer your first question.

We don't know for sure the max blocksize the miner will build on. Probably 1MB currently, because they suspect other will ignore a large block thus they risk building on an orphan. But this can change, and some day the risk will be to not build on a large block. What other nodes do is the key, and the other nodes are free to accept larger blocks.