Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[iCEBREAKER]

The iCEman: "more debate prolongs the stalemate"

Blessed is the Eternal Stalemate, for it preserves and strengthens Satoshi's Holy Sanity Check from the aggression of Bitcoin's adversaries.

   TIL there is intelligent life on Reddit:

I'm not sure if you are aware of the centralization pressure that occurs when miners are allowed to pick their own block sizes. Miners have incentives to encourage a very high orphan rate, if the orphan rate is properly targeted. Mining is a 0-sum game, which means that miners have incentive to hurt eachother. (less competition means lower difficulty and more blocks for you).

The ideal scenario for a miner is that the block they produce immediately hits a large portion of the hash power (at least 51%, but I'm not sure what the optimal percentage is), and then never hits the remaining hashpower at all. That remaining hashpower will have to find 2 blocks before the rest of the hashpower finds a single block - this will be detrimental to the profits of the minority hashpower, significantly so.

Large blocks provide a way to achieve this to some effect for bigger miners....

...This attack can be levied by a single large miner with no collusion. Simply by prioritizing the other large miners, and refusing to send the block to the low-bandwidth minority, a big miner can create blocks large enough to heavily impact the orphan rate of smaller miners without significantly affecting their own orphan rate.

This is very bad. The block size limit is important to stop this class of attack.

The vast majority of research demonstrates that blocksize does matter, blocksize caps are required to secure the network, and large blocks are a centralizing pressure.

Here’s a short list of what has been published so far:

1) No blocksize cap and no minimum fee leads to catastrophic breakage as miners chase marginal 0 fees:

    http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2400519

It’s important to note that mandatory minimum fees could simply be rebated out-of-band, which would lead to the same problems.

2) a) Large mining pools make strategies other than honest mining more profitable:

    http://www.cs.cornell.edu/~ie53/publications/btcProcArXiv.pdf

2) b) In the presence of latency, some alternative selfish strategy exists that is more profitable at any mining pool size. The larger the latency, the greater the selfish mining benefit:

    http://arxiv.org/pdf/1507.06183v1.pdf

3) Mining simulations run by Pieter Wuille shows that well-connected peers making a majority of the hashing power have an advantage over less-connected ones, earning more profits per hash. Larger blocks even further favor these well-connected peers. This gets even worse as we shift from block subsidy to fee based reward :

    http://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net/msg08161.html

4) Other point(s):

If there is no blocksize cap, a miner should simply snipe the fees from the latest block and try to stale that block by mining their own replacement. You get all the fees plus any more from new transactions. Full blocks gives less reward for doing so, since you have to choose which transactions to include. https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3fpuld/a_transaction_fee_market_exists_without_a_block/ctqxkq6

tl;dr  La Serenissima is long accustomed to laughable failed sieges by stymied enemies, Gavincoin merely being the most recent.

[majamalu]

Using logic, I can see two possible reason for being a block minimalist developer.

1)  Since "Uh oh, here it is we who decide the size of the blocks", because having power is good. Since there is no consensus within the self appointed dominator group, we have to wait until the royals can come to agreement.

2) They want to suffocate bitcoin, permanently if possible, to get a head start on their endevour into competing systems.

I'm leaning more and more towards 2, judging by the percentage of Blockstream supremacists and monero pimps between block minimalists.

[awemany]

[...]
So to answer your question, my view is that IBLT would not affect the health of the fee market (but it would reduce fees overall).
[...]

I think this unclear and could be misconstrued. This is the fee per transaction you are talking about, correct? As no one really knows about the total amount of fees without assumptions about the demand curve.

[NewLiberty]

Using logic, I can see two possible reason for being a block minimalist developer.

1)  Since "Uh oh, here it is we who decide the size of the blocks", because having power is good. Since there is no consensus within the self appointed dominator group, we have to wait until the royals can come to agreement.

2) They want to suffocate bitcoin, permanently if possible, to get a head start on their endevour into competing systems.

I'm leaning more and more towards 2, judging by the percentage of Blockstream supremacists and monero pimps between block minimalists.

I don't follow your logic.
Larger blocks would help Blockstream be effective.
I doubt there are many people (if any) in either Blockstream or Monero that are seeking for Bitcoin to not succeed.

It is disingenuous to assume a wicked motive in this debate just because you disagree on the risk assessment.
Those that disagree with you could do the same and say that you want big blocks ahead of other developments because you want Bitcoin to fail and it would also not make any sense or be useful to getting the right answer.

[Erdogan]

Using logic, I can see two possible reason for being a block minimalist developer.

1)  Since "Uh oh, here it is we who decide the size of the blocks", because having power is good. Since there is no consensus within the self appointed dominator group, we have to wait until the royals can come to agreement.

2) They want to suffocate bitcoin, permanently if possible, to get a head start on their endevour into competing systems.

I'm leaning more and more towards 2, judging by the percentage of Blockstream supremacists and monero pimps between block minimalists.

I don't follow your logic.
Larger blocks would help Blockstream be effective.
I doubt there are many people (if any) in either Blockstream or Monero that are seeking for Bitcoin to not succeed.

It is disingenuous to assume a wicked motive in this debate just because you disagree on the risk assessment.
Those that disagree with you could do the same and say that you want big blocks ahead of other developments because you want Bitcoin to fail and it would also not make any sense or be useful to getting the right answer.

I used "logic" to sound arrogant, it is a bad habit. Anyway, there is absolutely no higher risk with 1.1 MB than 1.0 MB. I don't want to repeat all the other arguments either way.

[brg444]

Using logic, I can see two possible reason for being a block minimalist developer.

1)  Since "Uh oh, here it is we who decide the size of the blocks", because having power is good. Since there is no consensus within the self appointed dominator group, we have to wait until the royals can come to agreement.

2) They want to suffocate bitcoin, permanently if possible, to get a head start on their endevour into competing systems.

I'm leaning more and more towards 2, judging by the percentage of Blockstream supremacists and monero pimps between block minimalists.

I don't follow your logic.
Larger blocks would help Blockstream be effective.
I doubt there are many people (if any) in either Blockstream or Monero that are seeking for Bitcoin to not succeed.

It is disingenuous to assume a wicked motive in this debate just because you disagree on the risk assessment.
Those that disagree with you could do the same and say that you want big blocks ahead of other developments because you want Bitcoin to fail and it would also not make any sense or be useful to getting the right answer.

I used "logic" to sound arrogant, it is a bad habit. Anyway, there is absolutely no higher risk with 1.1 MB than 1.0 MB. I don't want to repeat all the other arguments either way.

There is also absolutely no point to move from 1.0 MB to 1.1 MB.

[sgbett]

Using logic, I can see two possible reason for being a block minimalist developer.

1)  Since "Uh oh, here it is we who decide the size of the blocks", because having power is good. Since there is no consensus within the self appointed dominator group, we have to wait until the royals can come to agreement.

2) They want to suffocate bitcoin, permanently if possible, to get a head start on their endevour into competing systems.

I'm leaning more and more towards 2, judging by the percentage of Blockstream supremacists and monero pimps between block minimalists.

I don't follow your logic.
Larger blocks would help Blockstream be effective.
I doubt there are many people (if any) in either Blockstream or Monero that are seeking for Bitcoin to not succeed.

It is disingenuous to assume a wicked motive in this debate just because you disagree on the risk assessment.
Those that disagree with you could do the same and say that you want big blocks ahead of other developments because you want Bitcoin to fail and it would also not make any sense or be useful to getting the right answer.

I think what he is saying is that he doesn't think the [2] people want bitcoin to fail, they want to leverage the artificial fee market to push the adoption of their preferred alternative technology.

[brg444]

Using logic, I can see two possible reason for being a block minimalist developer.

1)  Since "Uh oh, here it is we who decide the size of the blocks", because having power is good. Since there is no consensus within the self appointed dominator group, we have to wait until the royals can come to agreement.

2) They want to suffocate bitcoin, permanently if possible, to get a head start on their endevour into competing systems.

I'm leaning more and more towards 2, judging by the percentage of Blockstream supremacists and monero pimps between block minimalists.

I don't follow your logic.
Larger blocks would help Blockstream be effective.
I doubt there are many people (if any) in either Blockstream or Monero that are seeking for Bitcoin to not succeed.

It is disingenuous to assume a wicked motive in this debate just because you disagree on the risk assessment.
Those that disagree with you could do the same and say that you want big blocks ahead of other developments because you want Bitcoin to fail and it would also not make any sense or be useful to getting the right answer.

I think what he is saying is that he doesn't think the [2] people want bitcoin to fail, they want to leverage the artificial fee market to push the adoption of their preferred alternative technology.

Right, that would make sense until you realise in both cases (lightning and sidechains) these technologies need bigger blocks to scale.

[NewLiberty]

Right, that would make sense until you realise in both cases (lightning and sidechains) these technologies need bigger blocks to scale.

...and Monero has had scaleable block sizes since inception. 

The assumption of invidious motive degrades the debate.  It is not an effective method to getting closer to a resolution.
When politicians use this method and claim that their opposition hates their country, rather than persuade based on the merits of their position, it irks me just as much. 

[justusranvier]

Right, that would make sense until you realise in both cases (lightning and sidechains) these technologies need bigger blocks to scale.

But before they need to scale, they just might need some help convincing potential users they are even necessary at all.

[brg444]

Right, that would make sense until you realise in both cases (lightning and sidechains) these technologies need bigger blocks to scale.

But before they need to scale, they just might need some help convincing potential users they are even necessary at all.

Are you suggesting they are not?

[justusranvier]

The assumption of invidious motive degrades the debate.  It is not an effective method to getting closer to a resolution.
When politicians use this method and claim that their opposition hates their country, rather than persuade based on the merits of their position, it irks me just as much.

I imagine the Pepsi doesn't routinely allow Coke employees to offer suggestions during their business meetings.

Like it or not, all forms of money inherently compete with each other.

Someone invested in currency A always has an interest in preventing the complete success of currency B, because a complete win for currency B means a loss for A.

[laurentmt]

One could argue that the Shannon Entropy in a new block will not in general be proportional to the size of the block, but that doesn't make any sense to me

I fear there's a misunderstanding here. The key point is the relation between the number of transactions and the size of the block (or the associated Shannon Entropy). With mechanisms like IBLT, the quantity of information transmitted on the wire (Shannon Entropy) is constant, whatever the number of transactions in the block.
EDIT: Do you plan to participate in this event ?

Unfortunately, "kicking the can" is a common pejorative term which can be thrown like mud at any interim solution.

Well, my intention was not to offend anyone with this term. Actually, I felt safe to write it because it was used by Gavin to describe its first proposal (as an interim solution).
I agree with you that there's nothing bad with a temporary solution... as long as the target solution is known beforehand.
And that's one of my problems with the current proposals. For now, there's no target solution which has been proposed and agreed by "everyone".

i agree with this view.  the relay network is cutting corners and making risky shortcuts in relaying w/o essentially verifying.  it only recently added a node in Beijing within the GFC.  i wonder though if it's origins were a means of compensating for the top 5 largest miners being in China?
again, one of my reasons for wanting to increase blocksize is to increase competition in mining outside of China to those who have greater bandwidth.  this would help level the playing field.

Imho, it's good that the relay network doesn't verify transactions. These verifications must be done by miners and this is an important part of their job in the decentralized network. Verifications done by the relay network would be a very bad incentive for miners, leading us to a very centralized system.

[cypherdoc]

climbing sharply:

[bassclef]

The assumption of invidious motive degrades the debate.  It is not an effective method to getting closer to a resolution.
When politicians use this method and claim that their opposition hates their country, rather than persuade based on the merits of their position, it irks me just as much.

I imagine the Pepsi doesn't routinely allow Coke employees to offer suggestions during their business meetings.

Like it or not, all forms of money inherently compete with each other.

Someone invested in currency A always has an interest in preventing the complete success of currency B, because a complete win for currency B means a loss for A.

Such is capitalism and the competition of ideas where the preminent ones ultimately win out.

I'm not as concerned with the blocksize debate as some, but I certainly understand the need to begin and continue the dialogue about it.

Things tend to move quickly to their place and calmly in their place. The problem will eventually be solved, but the outcome may not be predictable at this point in time.

[cypherdoc]

Right, that would make sense until you realise in both cases (lightning and sidechains) these technologies need bigger blocks to scale.

But before they need to scale, they just might need some help convincing potential users they are even necessary at all.

there'e no question in my mind that this is why BS has been BS'ing.

[cypherdoc]

they are still lying to you:

emerging mkts:



oil:



copper:



Freeport:



Exxon:



the UST safe haven trade is telling you that it doesn't believe the Fed has the balls to actually RAISE interest rates.  i agree:

[cypherdoc]

One could argue that the Shannon Entropy in a new block will not in general be proportional to the size of the block, but that doesn't make any sense to me

I fear there's a misunderstanding here. The key point is the relation between the number of transactions and the size of the block (or the associated Shannon Entropy).
With mechanisms like IBLT, the quantity of information transmitted on the wire (Shannon Entropy) is constant, whatever the number of transactions in the block.

that's the way i always understood it as well.  maybe Peter can elaborate.

Unfortunately, "kicking the can" is a common pejorative term which can be thrown like mud at any interim solution.

Well, my intention was not to offend anyone with this term. Actually, I felt safe to write it because it was used by Gavin to describe its first proposal (as an interim solution).
I agree with you that there's nothing bad with a temporary solution... as long as the target solution is known beforehand.
And that's one of my problems with the current proposals. For now, there's no target solution which has been proposed and agreed by "everyone".

i agree with Peter that the "target" is to allow the miners and users to establish their own independent fee mkt w/o outside interference from centralized non-economically involved characters like core dev.  no one knows exactly where that equilibrium lies but if you believe in free mkts then you believe they will work it out to theirs and everyone else's mutual advantage.  it takes a Keynesian to believe that they will act to destroy others involved in an open system like Bitcoin for some short sighted interim gain that will only lead to their own self destruction with only a little bit more time.

i agree with this view.  the relay network is cutting corners and making risky shortcuts in relaying w/o essentially verifying.  it only recently added a node in Beijing within the GFC.  i wonder though if it's origins were a means of compensating for the top 5 largest miners being in China?
again, one of my reasons for wanting to increase blocksize is to increase competition in mining outside of China to those who have greater bandwidth.  this would help level the playing field.

Imho, it's good that the relay network doesn't verify transactions. These verifications must be done by miners and this is an important part of their job in the decentralized network. Verifications done by the relay network would be a very bad incentive for miners, leading us to a very centralized system.

my pt was that the construction of the relay network might have been a knee jerk reaction to the same "large miner large block attack" FUD that has been spread around by the Cripplecoiners.  it's author is a BS employee after all. it's only been around since Sept 2014.  i'm not saying that the relay network has been bad for Bitcoin; it may even have been good.  except that it is encouraging this non-verification scheme for tx's which as you say, may be gamed and has contributed to quite a perversion in analyzing this particular attack and was never visualized in Satoshi's original ideas.  perhaps it is not necessary to exist.  that is not to deny that it does exist and we need to adapt to it's presence.

[cypherdoc]

Dow -200 and falling.

Dead cat bounce.

[brg444]

my pt was that the construction of the relay network might have been a knee jerk reaction to the same "large miner large block attack" FUD that has been spread around by the Cripplecoiners.  it's author is a BS employee after all. it's only been around since Sept 2014.  i'm not saying that the relay network has been bad for Bitcoin; it may even have been good.  except that it is encouraging this non-verification scheme for tx's which as you say, may be gamed and has contributed to quite a perversion in analyzing this particular attack and was never visualized in Satoshi's original ideas.  perhaps it is not necessary to exist.  that is not to deny that it does exist and we need to adapt to it's presence.

http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/009944.html

Maybe inform yourself before pulling things out your ass.