Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[cypherdoc]

Jeff is saying that miner voting via BIP100 will be submitted (merged in the BIP library?) implemented (pull request?) within two weeks.

This is great news. I see it as compatible with BIP 101 if a mined block size conforms to the least of the prevailing maximum of 100 and 101.

http://gtf.org/garzik/bitcoin/BIP100-blocksizechangeproposal.pdf

Protocol changes proposed:
1. Hard fork, to
2. Remove static 1MB block size limit.
3. Simultaneously,​addanewfloatingblocksizelimit,setto1MB.
4. The historical 32MB limit remains.
5. Schedule the hard fork on testnet for September 1, 2015.
6. Schedule the hard fork on bitcoin main chain for January 11, 2016.
7. Changing the 1MB limit is accomplished in a manner similar to BIP 34, a one­way lock­in
upgrade with a 12,000 block (3 month) threshold by 90% of the blocks.
8. Limit increase or decrease may not exceed 2x in any one step.
9. Miners vote by encoding ‘BV’+BlockSizeRequestValue into coinbase scriptSig, e.g.
“/BV8000000/” to vote for 8M. Votes are evaluated by dropping bottom 20% and top 20%, and then the most common floor (minimum) is chosen.

edit: point 7 with 90% would IMHO be improved with 75% + 2 week grace period.

so miners only vote once by signalling the next block size doubling into the Coinbase?  the progression has to be 1 to 2 to 4 to 8 to 16MB, correct?  if so, the example given above is just for illustrative purposes only as to the encoding, and not an initial ramp from 1MB to 8MB?

it's also true that these doublings can take place at any time interval as long as 90% consensus is achieved, correct?

[1714161392]

1714161392

[1714161392]

1714161392

[1714161392]

1714161392

[solex]

Jeff is saying that miner voting via BIP100 will be submitted (merged in the BIP library?) implemented (pull request?) within two weeks.

This is great news. I see it as compatible with BIP 101 if a mined block size conforms to the least of the prevailing maximum of 100 and 101.

http://gtf.org/garzik/bitcoin/BIP100-blocksizechangeproposal.pdf

Protocol changes proposed:
1. Hard fork, to
2. Remove static 1MB block size limit.
3. Simultaneously,​addanewfloatingblocksizelimit,setto1MB.
4. The historical 32MB limit remains.
5. Schedule the hard fork on testnet for September 1, 2015.
6. Schedule the hard fork on bitcoin main chain for January 11, 2016.
7. Changing the 1MB limit is accomplished in a manner similar to BIP 34, a one­way lock­in
upgrade with a 12,000 block (3 month) threshold by 90% of the blocks.
8. Limit increase or decrease may not exceed 2x in any one step.
9. Miners vote by encoding ‘BV’+BlockSizeRequestValue into coinbase scriptSig, e.g.
“/BV8000000/” to vote for 8M. Votes are evaluated by dropping bottom 20% and top 20%, and then the most common floor (minimum) is chosen.

edit: point 7 with 90% would IMHO be improved with 75% + 2 week grace period.

so miners only vote once by signalling the next block size doubling into the Coinbase?  the progression has to be 1 to 2 to 4 to 8 to 16MB, correct?  if so, the example given above is just for illustrative purposes only as to the encoding, and not an initial ramp from 1MB to 8MB?

it's also true that these doublings can take place at any time interval as long as 90% consensus is achieved, correct?

There is no doubling schedule or initial ramp in BIP100. It just gives the miners the vote on any block size they like, but their consensus can't go further than double or halve the limit at any one time. So they might mostly go for a size like 1450000 then 2100000 then 1790000 depending on their capacity to handle larger blocks or the amount of fee-paying tx which are consistently in mempools.
The BV800000 is just an example but some miners are using this as a signal that they like BIP100, or that they want *something* over 1MB
The 90% is a one-off to get the process going. After that the limit chosen might be a number that has 30% support, but it is the floor of the set of votes with the extremes removed.

[lunarboy]

There is no doubling schedule or initial ramp in BIP100. It just gives the miners the vote on any block size they like, but their consensus can't go further than double or halve the limit at any one time. So they might mostly go for a size like 1450000 then 2100000 then 1790000 depending on their capacity to handle larger blocks or the amount of fee-paying tx which are consistently in mempools.
The BV800000 is just an example but some miners are using this as a signal that they like BIP100, or that they want *something* over 1MB
The 90% is a one-off to get the process going. After that the limit chosen might be a number that has 30% support, but it is the floor of the set of votes with the extremes removed.

So would this still require a further hard fork 'if and when needed' to remove the 32MB limit?

Presumably the whole industry would be more comfortable with block size changes at that point. so it would hopefully  be less controversial.

[brg444]

I don't know, but you are saying we shouldn't do anything, because doing something might not be quite enough?

I'm saying that the pretense that 1 MBers are playing central bankers seems funny in the light considering most block increase proponents are the ones arguing for arbitrary control of supply.

really? I must have missed something along the way, couldyou  please share pointers to evidence on which the bolded claim is based? (serious question)

Blocksize limit = supply.

Unless you advocate lifting it completely most block increase suggestions amounts to a control of supply based on projected demand.

(of course 1MB is an equally arbitrary quota but that is beside the point I was making)

[solex]

So would this still require a further hard fork 'if and when needed' to remove the 32MB limit?

Presumably the whole industry would be more comfortable with block size changes at that point. so it would hopefully  be less controversial.

Correct. And I really hope it would be less controversial because it is a much bigger change (in terms of software).

However, I suspect that this limit may handled in a multi-pronged manner. Leaving the 32MB as a message limit, but using a mixture of block segmentation logic, Extension blocks, and IBLT. Efficiencies in block relay may mean that a 32MB message block can handle 3GB  disk blocks or 10,000 TPS on the main-chain, leaving aside all the volume that would be on LN-type solutions at that time.

Man, I'm so tired of the block size debate.

I feel your pain.
Getting over this 1MB is really important and it leaves the way clear for massive scaling (as far as computing tech allows for what is deemed a "standard" full node user). Maybe Milly Bitcoin will have a definition of that for us by then.

[Peter R]

I don't know, but you are saying we shouldn't do anything, because doing something might not be quite enough?

I'm saying that the pretense that 1 MBers are playing central bankers seems funny in the light considering most block increase proponents are the ones arguing for arbitrary control of supply.

really? I must have missed something along the way, couldyou  please share pointers to evidence on which the bolded claim is based? (serious question)

Blocksize limit = supply.

Unless you advocate lifting it completely most block increase suggestions amounts to a control of supply based on projected demand.

(of course 1MB is an equally arbitrary quota but that is beside the point I was making)

In classical economics, one defines a "supply curve" where the unit cost of the commodity (block space) is a monotonically increasing function of the quantity produced.  If demand grows, producers increase production to meet it (at an increased price).  This is how the free market works.



Your comment that "blocksize limit = supply" is false except in the case where the supply is constrained by the protocol rather than by economics (this continues the debate we had earlier).  As long as the limit is far above the transaction demand (much greater than Q* in the figure), then the supply is constrained economically rather than algorithmically.  The limit thus serves as only an anti-spam measure--that is, it continues to serve the original purpose it was designed for.  

  

[brg444]

I don't know, but you are saying we shouldn't do anything, because doing something might not be quite enough?

I'm saying that the pretense that 1 MBers are playing central bankers seems funny in the light considering most block increase proponents are the ones arguing for arbitrary control of supply.

really? I must have missed something along the way, couldyou  please share pointers to evidence on which the bolded claim is based? (serious question)

Blocksize limit = supply.

Unless you advocate lifting it completely most block increase suggestions amounts to a control of supply based on projected demand.

(of course 1MB is an equally arbitrary quota but that is beside the point I was making)

In classical economics, one defines a "supply curve" where the unit cost of the commodity (block space) is a monotonically increasing function of the quantity produced.  If demand grows, producers increase production to meet it (at an increased price).  This is how the free market works.



Your comment that "blocksize limit = supply" is false except in the case where the supply is constrained by the protocol rather than by economics (this continues the debate we had earlier).  As long as the limit is far above the transaction demand (much greater than Q* in the figure), then the supply is constrained economically rather than algorithmically.  The limit thus serves as only an anti-spam measure--that is, it continues to serve the original purpose it was designed for.  

That is all true only if Q* stays within the range of your assumptions.

[Peter R]

That is all true only if Q* stays within the range of your assumptions.

That seems like a strange way of wording what I already said: "As long as the limit is far above the transaction demand (much greater than Q* in the figure), then the supply is constrained economically rather than algorithmically."

[lunarboy]

ZH Tyler and offshore Yuan hinting it might be a case of three strikes and you're out tonight  

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-08-12/theres-more-come-offshore-yuan-signals-further-devaluation-tonight

[brg444]

That is all true only if Q* stays within the range of your assumptions.

That seems like a strange way of wording what I already said: "As long as the limit is far above the transaction demand (much greater than Q* in the figure), then the supply is constrained economically rather than algorithmically."

See this is exactly what I'm talking about. Pretending you can predict future transaction demand and set an arbitrary limit "much greater". Sounds like something out of the FED.

To then go back to our previous argument, let's pretend that your 8 MBs blocks get filled a year before your scheduled doubling then what happens?

I guess my point is that modeling transactional demand based on historical growth is a surefire way to shoot yourself in the foot.

[cypherdoc]

looks like theymos just censored this post by aminok:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gsin0/call_to_theymos_please_dont_try_to_impose_your/

[cypherdoc]

as all of you know, i've been bearish on the USD recently as a contrary move to the mainstream assessment of USD strengthening.  my theory is that if we are entering another recession, the US won't be as lucky as 2008 in having both the USD and UST's rally as safe havens.  i think alot of our political and financial capital has been wasted as a nation in the continued bailouts and moral hazard of the last 7 yrs.  in that environment, i believe the market will have no choice but to pick UST's over the USD.

i think this comparison graph of the $DJI and the $DXY is interesting as it appears they both may be rolling over.  if so, we may be on the dawn of serious gains in hard money.  which one?  of course i think it will be Bitcoin with gold collapsing.  we'll see:

[Peter R]

That is all true only if Q* stays within the range of your assumptions.

That seems like a strange way of wording what I already said: "As long as the limit is far above the transaction demand (much greater than Q* in the figure), then the supply is constrained economically rather than algorithmically."

See this is exactly what I'm talking about. Pretending you can predict future transaction demand and set an arbitrary limit "much greater". Sounds like something out of the FED.

You've really lost me here.  If the growth in demand for transactions is greater than what is permitted by BIP101, then we'll bump into the higher limit, and fees will increase more than what would be implied by my paper.  In other words "as long as the limit is far above the transaction demand (much greater than Q* in the figure), then the supply is constrained economically rather than algorithmically."

I don't understand your concern here.  What would be so bad about hitting the higher (and constantly increasing) limit earlier than historical extrapolation would predict? [not that I think that's likely, but still]

To then go back to our previous argument, let's pretend that your 8 MBs blocks get filled a year before your scheduled doubling then what happens?

Then fees would be more than what's suggested in my paper.  What would be wrong with that [in the unlikely event it happens]?  In fact, it would just be something like the realization of the "high" growth curve shown here:

I guess my point is that modeling transactional demand based on historical growth is a surefire way to shoot yourself in the foot.

There are several "transactional demands" modelled in the above graph. They would all work fine with BIP101.  It's just that in the case of the "high growth" curve, the fee market might begin to be affected by the block size limit, rather than strictly due to economic supply and demand.  

How do you propose this is "shooting yourself in the foot?"  

[cypherdoc]

That is all true only if Q* stays within the range of your assumptions.

That seems like a strange way of wording what I already said: "As long as the limit is far above the transaction demand (much greater than Q* in the figure), then the supply is constrained economically rather than algorithmically."

See this is exactly what I'm talking about. Pretending you can predict future transaction demand and set an arbitrary limit "much greater". Sounds like something out of the FED.

You've really lost me here.  If the growth in demand for transactions is greater than what is permitted by BIP101, then we'll bump into the higher limit, and fees will increase more than what would be implied by my paper.  In other words "as long as the limit is far above the transaction demand (much greater than Q* in the figure), then the supply is constrained economically rather than algorithmically."

I don't understand your concern here.  What would be so bad about hitting the higher (and constantly increasing) limit earlier than historical extrapolation would predict? [not that I think that's likely, but still]

To then go back to our previous argument, let's pretend that your 8 MBs blocks get filled a year before your scheduled doubling then what happens?

Then fees would be more than what's suggested in my paper.  What would be wrong with that [in the unlikely event it happens]?  In fact, it would just be something like the realization of the "high" growth curve shown here:

I guess my point is that modeling transactional demand based on historical growth is a surefire way to shoot yourself in the foot.

There are several "transactional demands" modelled in the above graph. They would all work fine with BIP101.  It's just that in the case of the "high growth" curve, the fee market might begin to be affected by the block size limit, rather than strictly due to economic supply and demand.  

How do you propose this is "shooting yourself in the foot?"  

don't try to be logical with him.  you'll lose every time.

you've already said that your endgame would be to see no limit like i have stated many times.  if only to keep the Cripplecoiners from freaking out, your paper tries to model an upper bound to prevent us from bumping up against the limit so as to avoid spammers entering the mkt near that point (at low cost to them) to try and clog up the network.  ideally, there would be no limit to eliminate this risk entirely.  but even with a limit set so high, if tx's filled blocks that large, that would be a great problem to have compared to the current handicap of 1MB.

IOW, he wants to penalize you for trying just b/c you might not be perfect.  therefore, you are just like a central banker. 

[cypherdoc]

looks like theymos just censored this post by aminok:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gsin0/call_to_theymos_please_dont_try_to_impose_your/

/u/aminok confirms:

re: theymos

from aminok sent 2 minutes ago

You're right. I'm legitimately shocked. Not sure how to respond.

    permalinkreportblock usermark unreadreply

[cypherdoc]

ZH Tyler and offshore Yuan hinting it might be a case of three strikes and you're out tonight  

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-08-12/theres-more-come-offshore-yuan-signals-further-devaluation-tonight

you're on:

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/08/12/china-gets-cold-feet-about-floating-yuan.html

[cypherdoc]

https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoin_uncensored/comments/3gsnlf/need_to_engage_in_a_marketing_campaign/cu151f3?context=3

[notme]

ZH Tyler and offshore Yuan hinting it might be a case of three strikes and you're out tonight  

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-08-12/theres-more-come-offshore-yuan-signals-further-devaluation-tonight

you're on:

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/08/12/china-gets-cold-feet-about-floating-yuan.html

So China decides to float the yuan when the dollar is high, and controls the descent by selling USD.

That seems to align well with your thesis on the market favoring UST over USD as safe haven.

[Peter R]

looks like theymos just censored this post by aminok:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gsin0/call_to_theymos_please_dont_try_to_impose_your/

/u/aminok confirms:

re: theymos

from aminok sent 2 minutes ago

You're right. I'm legitimately shocked. Not sure how to respond.

    permalinkreportblock usermark unreadreply

There was just a post by /u/raisethelimit where something he wrote got censored, and then he was trying to test the new auto-modding to find out what comments and submissions are getting automatically hidden, but now the entire test post was just censored too.  I saved the link though:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gsxqf/all_my_posts_are_currently_being_censored_this_is/

His conclusion was that any submission or comment with a link to the "sub-reddits that shall not be named" are getting automatically hidden.

[cypherdoc]

looks like theymos just censored this post by aminok:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gsin0/call_to_theymos_please_dont_try_to_impose_your/

/u/aminok confirms:

re: theymos

from aminok sent 2 minutes ago

You're right. I'm legitimately shocked. Not sure how to respond.

    permalinkreportblock usermark unreadreply

There was just a post by /u/raisethelimit where something he wrote got censored, and then he was trying to test the new auto-modding to find out what comments and submissions are getting automatically hidden, but now the entire test post was just censored too.  I saved the link though:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gsxqf/all_my_posts_are_currently_being_censored_this_is/

His conclusion was that any submission or comment with a link to the "sub-reddits that shall not be named" are getting automatically hidden.

which ones?