Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[smooth]

The debate is really just about ideology at this point, and that's why we're no longer making progress.  The technical debate is over.  Some people want Bitcoin to be free to grow, while others want to control the growth process to attempt to balance "decentralization" with "block space access."

That's frankly bullshit Peter R and I'm surprised to see that kind of rhetoric from you.

Bitcoin the technology is by its nature a decentralized and peer-to-peer system, but also one that "should" scale. The trade offs between decentralization and scaling are very much part of that technology and therefore part of the "technical debate". The only thing ideological here are people who want to move it from that realm to something else, and give people who are neither technologists nor directly involved with building the technology any input at all. That includes opinions on whether the debate is technical or not.

I should have said "between BIP100, 101, 102, etc., the debate is not technical but ideological at this point."  

Do you believe that moving forward with BIP101 (Gavin's proposal) could destroy Bitcoin for technical reasons?  

Yes I do believe that it could. I believe that a major or even near-total (much less total) collapse of decentralization is a technical failure, and is a possible (and not outrageously implausible) outcome of BIP 101.

[1715239857]

1715239857

[1715239857]

1715239857

[1715239857]

1715239857

[Peter R]

Yes I do believe that it could. I believe that a major or even near-total (much less total) collapse of decentralization is a technical failure, and is a possible (and not outrageously implausible) outcome of BIP 101.

I agree that a major or near-total collapse of decentralization would be a technical failure.  

I guess we just assign very different probabilities to that happening under BIP101.  

[iCEBREAKER]

Yes I do believe that it could. I believe that a major or even near-total (much less total) collapse of decentralization is a technical failure, and is a possible (and not outrageously implausible) outcome of BIP 101.

I agree that a major or near-total collapse of decentralization would be a technical failure.  

I guess we just assign very different probabilities to that happening under BIP101.  

So much for the technical debate being "over."   

[cypherdoc]

From: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gdj7j/a_better_way_to_govern_bitcoin_block_size_open/ctxb53s

You are really going all out on the attack FUD on this one aren't you?

I think the analogy to the Fed's FOMC is fairly accurate. Part of the ideology behind central banking is that a group of educated men can make better decisions for what is best for the economy (by choosing the interest rate that balances "inflation expectations" with "employment") than allowing the free market to solve the same problem.

This is similar to the block size debate. Part of the ideology behind limiting the block size is that a group of talented coders can make better decisions for what is best for Bitcoin, by choosing a limit that produces what they see as a better balance between "decentralization" and "blockchain access," than what would happen if the limit were slowly removed according to Gavin's BIP101 proposal.

Isn't this what the debate really comes down to now? The technical debate is over; It's ideology at this point. Do we want a Bitcoin that has a dual mandate of balancing decentralization with blockchain access? Or do we want a permissionless Bitcoin where blockspace is governed by the fee market?

The debate is really just about ideology at this point, and that's why we're no longer making progress.  The technical debate is over.  Some people want Bitcoin to be free to grow, while others want to control the growth process to attempt to balance "decentralization" with "block space access."

it's time to vote with your feet.

[HeliKopterBen]

Yes I do believe that it could. I believe that a major or even near-total (much less total) collapse of decentralization is a technical failure, and is a possible (and not outrageously implausible) outcome of BIP 101.

I agree that a major or near-total collapse of decentralization would be a technical failure.  

I guess we just assign very different probabilities to that happening under BIP101.  

So much for the technical debate being "over."   

In other words - The technical debate is over.  There will be NO catastrophic failure of decentralization with BIP101.

[tvbcof]

testing versions of XT available on the nodes monitor:

http://xtnodes.com/

Justusranviar and cypherdoc describe the XT system and infrastructure footprint:

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iE17sNjmW7c

[cypherdoc]

tvbcof: "woof, woof":

[smooth]

Yes I do believe that it could. I believe that a major or even near-total (much less total) collapse of decentralization is a technical failure, and is a possible (and not outrageously implausible) outcome of BIP 101.

I agree that a major or near-total collapse of decentralization would be a technical failure. 

I guess we just assign very different probabilities to that happening under BIP101. 

I never stated probabilities. Unless you believe you can support that the probabilities are "outrageously implausible" (and if so based on what???) we don't necessarily disagree at all.

Furthermore, getting back to your original post, I don't agree that we "are no longer making progress". Just a few days ago you released a paper that was insightful, comprehensive on the matter of fee markets over the next 10-20 years (though to be clear that is only a portion of the overall block size debate), generally well-received, and raised new questions for follow up research. How can you say that with a major step forward having occurred only a few days ago, there is no longer any progress? Could the same be said a week or two ago, before you paper was released?

I can only imagine this perspective comes from the hubris of thinking that now that your paper is out, everyone should just shut up and get in line behind your conclusions.

EDIT: edited to clarify that the paper is, by its own stated conclusions, relevant to the next 10-20 years. No one seems interested in my observation that the final paragraph of the paper is in fact highly relevant beyond 10-20 years. I guess we will have all cashed out by then?

[iCEBREAKER]

Yes, how dare anyone take care to insulate debates from ad hom fallacies and protect their families/careers from internet whackjobs?

Fuck Satoshi Nakamoto for being an anonymous coward!  Nobody ever said disrupting gold, central banks, and fintech settlement would be safe or easy!  Man up and make sacrifices!  The revolution needs martyrs!

And fuck Publius for writing all those mean things about how the King of England treats his American Colonies.  Such a gutless terror-symp, am I right?

The purpose of anonymous speech is, as you mentioned, to avoid adverse consequences of speaking.

In general you can divide this further into two categories:

1. Avoiding the adverse consequences of telling the truth
2. Avoiding the adverse consequences of telling a lie

1. Is admirable, 2. is contemptible.

PS  Still waiting for your concern over lack of an objective, precise definition for Bitcoin network "overcapacity" to result in some amazing new concepts and dimensionless numbers.

After all the hand wringing you performed over our unforgivably sloppy use of "decentralized" I'm sure such research is your top priority.  

I have no idea what you're talking about now.

You are half right.  Here, let me help:

The purpose of anonymous speech is to to avoid adverse consequences of speaking and ensure an abstract debate of the issue's merits in a vaccuum, free from nonsense about personalities and biographies.

Fixed ^it^ for you.  

I didn't *only* mention avoiding adverse consequences of speaking, although that is the part of my main comment to which you responded.

The neglected other half was about insulating debates from ad hom fallacies ("GMAX BACKAMOTO = THE BLOCKSTREAM CONSPIRACY!!1  PLUS PETERTOAD VIACOIN WTF?!?").

I understand that consequence, which is to the benefit of the audience as much as (or more than) the speaker, does not further the anonymity-implies-something-to-hide meme you seek to promote, so small wonder you ignored it.


The PS is fairly simple.  Given your Great Concern about a rigorous definition of decentralization, your silence about the same issue with 'overcapacity' is deafening.

You say we can't (usefully and without concern trolling) discuss decentralization without assigning it a number from 1 to 10 (with 20 decimals places for precision).

Fair enough, let's attempt to define our crypto-terms.  Now, where is the same demand when Frap.doc starts hyperventilating because the network is "choking" and "overcapacity?"

You don't get call out sloppy "I know it when I see it" use of one crypto-term while ignoring another.  

[cypherdoc]

Yes, how dare anyone take care to insulate debates from ad hom fallacies and protect their families/careers from internet whackjobs?

Fuck Satoshi Nakamoto for being an anonymous coward!  Nobody ever said disrupting gold, central banks, and fintech settlement would be safe or easy!  Man up and make sacrifices!  The revolution needs martyrs!

And fuck Publius for writing all those mean things about how the King of England treats his American Colonies.  Such a gutless terror-symp, am I right?

The purpose of anonymous speech is, as you mentioned, to avoid adverse consequences of speaking.

In general you can divide this further into two categories:

1. Avoiding the adverse consequences of telling the truth
2. Avoiding the adverse consequences of telling a lie

1. Is admirable, 2. is contemptible.

PS  Still waiting for your concern over lack of an objective, precise definition for Bitcoin network "overcapacity" to result in some amazing new concepts and dimensionless numbers.

After all the hand wringing you performed over our unforgivably sloppy use of "decentralized" I'm sure such research is your top priority.  

I have no idea what you're talking about now.

You are half right.  Here, let me help:

The purpose of anonymous speech is to to avoid adverse consequences of speaking and ensure an abstract debate of the issue's merits in a vaccuum, free from nonsense about personalities and biographies.

Fixed ^it^ for you.  

I didn't *only* mention avoiding adverse consequences of speaking, although that is the part of my main comment to which you responded.

The neglected other half was about insulating debates from ad hom fallacies ("GMAX BACKAMOTO = THE BLOCKSTREAM CONSPIRACY!!1  PLUS PETERTOAD VIACOIN WTF?!?").

I understand that consequence, which is to the benefit of the audience as much as (or more than) the speaker, does not further the anonymity-implies-something-to-hide meme you seek to promote, so small wonder you ignored it.


The PS is fairly simple.  Given your Great Concern about a rigorous definition of decentralization, your silence about the same issue with 'overcapacity' is deafening.

You say we can't (usefully and without concern trolling) discuss decentralization without assigning it a number from 1 to 10 (with 20 decimals places for precision).

Fair enough, let's attempt to define our crypto-terms.  Now, where is the same demand when Frap.doc starts hyperventilating because the network is "choking" and "overcapacity?"

You don't get call out sloppy "I know it when I see it" use of one crypto-term while ignoring another.  

just stop with all the iCEBLOW.  admit it.  you're greedy.

[iCEBREAKER]

[ Gavinista blatherings ] 

I don't agree that we "are no longer making progress". Just a few days ago you released a paper that was insightful, comprehensive, generally well-received, and raised new questions for follow up research. How can you say that with a major step forward having occurred only a few days ago, there is no longer any progress? Could the same be said a week or two ago, before you paper was released?

I can only imagine this perspective comes from the hubris of thinking that now that your paper is out, everyone should just shut up and get in line behind your conclusions.

Even prior to Peter's paper's public publishing, it was obvious it was intended to 'settle' the debate, via the browbeating process of producing more ostensibly conclusory content than the other side could reasonably be arsed to GAF about.

But he's still right, in roundabout way.  The debate is settled; the consensus is 'we don't have a consensus.'

[solex]

The debate is settled; the consensus is 'we don't have a consensus.'

I would love to see the current definition of "consensus" for Bitcoin changes because if that means 100% support for doing something then the whole project is royally screwed. There has been no endeavor of importance in human history where unanimity was required on all decisions.

Satoshi is a pragmatist because he has >50% majority baked into deciding how the blockchain grows. That is the consensus he came up with and anything better is a "nice-to-have".

[brg444]

The debate is settled; the consensus is 'we don't have a consensus.'

I would love to see the current definition of "consensus" for Bitcoin changes because if that means 100% support for doing something then the whole project is royally screwed. There has been no endeavor of importance in human history where unanimity was required on all decisions.

Satoshi is a pragmatist because he has >50% majority baked into deciding how the blockchain grows. That is the consensus he came up with and anything better is a "nice-to-have".

Yes, we know, you'd like it to be a democracy. Fortunately Bitcoin works exactly against that principle.

[iCEBREAKER]

The puffery "about censorship" is the most lulzy of all, because it highlights the self-righteous whiny immaturity and fundamental ignorance of the ReddiTard mob.

As usual, not a single argument

Do I really have to explain (like you are 5) why puffery "about censorship" is the most lulzy of all, because it highlights the self-righteous whiny immaturity and fundamental ignorance of the ReddiTard mob?

OK, fine.

The lulz are a result of the drama queen reactions which declare theymos and bashco to be Literally Hitler^®.  EG:

A moderators job is not to decide what truth is, or to only allow discussion on ideas they believe in, but to moderate the discussions so they don't get out of hand. Not to stop them from happening! This is the epitome of authoritarianism: Let the book burning begin!

TIL moderating a subreddit is actually "censorship" and "the epitome of authoritarianism."   

[smooth]

The debate is settled; the consensus is 'we don't have a consensus.'

I would love to see the current definition of "consensus" for Bitcoin changes because if that means 100% support for doing something then the whole project is royally screwed. There has been no endeavor of importance in human history where unanimity was required on all decisions.

This obviously doesn't apply because Bitcoin development has not needed 100% support for "doing something". Compare Bitcoin today to Bitcoin 0.1 and you will see that quite a lot has been done, and probably not one single thing has ever had 100% support (there is always someone...)

What Bitcoin development has done up to this point is push through contentious hard forks. There is a perfectly reasonable view that hard forks should never be done at all, or at least not unless there is a huge emergency. "I think this is a good idea" doesn't count.

Accepting for the moment that point of view, development on a great many things that don't require hard forks (contentious or otherwise) can continue, and scalability can be built outside the core. That may not be everyone's preferred solution but it hardly means the whole project is royally screwed.

EDIT: added missing word "not"

[majamalu]

The debate is settled; the consensus is 'we don't have a consensus.'

I would love to see the current definition of "consensus" for Bitcoin changes because if that means 100% support for doing something then the whole project is royally screwed. There has been no endeavor of importance in human history where unanimity was required on all decisions.

Satoshi is a pragmatist because he has >50% majority baked into deciding how the blockchain grows. That is the consensus he came up with and anything better is a "nice-to-have".

Yes, we know, you'd like it to be a democracy. Fortunately Bitcoin works exactly against that principle.

Unlike in a democracy, where decisions are coercively imposed by a numerical majority, in a system ruled by economic majority there's no coercion; the economic majority goes its own way and breaks free from anyone who seeks to impose a measure that is judged detrimental to its interests.

[rocks]

Interesting piece on the 2013 fork.  https://freedom-to-tinker.com/blog/randomwalker/analyzing-the-2013-bitcoin-fork-centralized-decision-making-saved-the-day/?utm_content=buffer4f46c&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Some ungrateful people here need to show a little more respect for the work of the devs, especially LukeJr.

You of all people would idolize Luke jr

You of all ungrateful people here need to show a little more respect for the work of the devs, especially LukeJr.

The devs represent probably less than 0.01% of the effort spent getting bitcoin to where it is today.heck they didnt even come up with the original concept, and more and more don't even seem to understand it.

[rocks]

From: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gdj7j/a_better_way_to_govern_bitcoin_block_size_open/ctxb53s

You are really going all out on the attack FUD on this one aren't you?

I think the analogy to the Fed's FOMC is fairly accurate. Part of the ideology behind central banking is that a group of educated men can make better decisions for what is best for the economy (by choosing the interest rate that balances "inflation expectations" with "employment") than allowing the free market to solve the same problem.

This is similar to the block size debate. Part of the ideology behind limiting the block size is that a group of talented coders can make better decisions for what is best for Bitcoin, by choosing a limit that produces what they see as a better balance between "decentralization" and "blockchain access," than what would happen if the limit were slowly removed according to Gavin's BIP101 proposal.

Isn't this what the debate really comes down to now? The technical debate is over; It's ideology at this point. Do we want a Bitcoin that has a dual mandate of balancing decentralization with blockchain access? Or do we want a permissionless Bitcoin where blockspace is governed by the fee market?

The debate is really just about ideology at this point, and that's why we're no longer making progress.  The technical debate is over.  Some people want Bitcoin to be free to grow, while others want to control the growth process to attempt to balance "decentralization" with "block space access."

Well said, BTW great paper last week.

[justusranvier]

The purpose of anonymous speech is to to avoid adverse consequences of speaking and ensure an abstract debate of the issue's merits in a vaccuum, free from nonsense about personalities and biographies.

That is a claim that certainly can be made.

On the other hand, it is a known fact that the same technique can be weaponized:

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/

In the current environment. I'd say that the onus to prove honest dealing lies with the one using the technique.

You say we can't (usefully and without concern trolling) discuss decentralization without assigning it a number from 1 to 10 (with 20 decimals places for precision).

No. You're so far off that you aren't even wrong.

Before we can talk intelligently about decentralization:

Step 1: Define what the word means
Step 2: Establish that decentralization is, in fact, desirable, and why

I haven't seen much in the way to establish either one of those points, just a lot of begging the question by assuming that "decentralization" has a coherent and stable meaning, and that it (whatever it is) is obviously good.

I'm still not sure what you're going on about with "overcapacity", as I've never used that term.

Are you talking about well-known and understood principles of economics?

[iCEBREAKER]

The debate is settled; the consensus is 'we don't have a consensus.'

I would love to see the current definition of "consensus" for Bitcoin changes because if that means 100% support for doing something then the whole project is royally screwed. There has been no endeavor of importance in human history where unanimity was required on all decisions.

This obviously doesn't apply because Bitcoin development has not needed 100% support for "doing something". Compare Bitcoin today to Bitcoin 0.1 and you will see that quite a lot has been done, and probably not one single thing has ever had 100% support (there is always someone...)

What Bitcoin development has done up to this point is push through contentious hard forks. There is a perfectly reasonable view that hard forks should never be done at all, or at least not unless there is a huge emergency. "I think this is a good idea" doesn't count.

Accepting for the moment that point of view, development on a great many things that don't require hard forks (contentious or otherwise) can continue, and scalability can be built outside the core. That may not be everyone's preferred solution but it hardly means the whole project is royally screwed.

Well said.  In solex's "the whole project is royally screwed" quasi-buttcoiner BS, his unsubstantiated claim of heretofore unobserved emergency Soon relies on completely warped misreading and misapplication of Bitcoin history (which you graciously correct with an apt summary of the actual facts and logic involved).

Economic consensus will exist IFF it is no longer in the economic interest of anyone possessing economic veto power to maintain their major objection to the proposed hard fork.  EG, in "a huge emergency" that threatens the present and future value of their coins, even MPEX & Co will (tend to) support (or at least not object to and actively attack/sabotage) the leading proposed solution.

As for

"I think this is a good idea" doesn't count.

lol rekt   

That one is up there with MoA's classic

"not tonight dear"