Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[brg444]

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?"  

Here is what I'm thinking: considering you are hell bent on selling the world on the value of the Bitcoin payment network, do you reasonably believe that Bitcoin is gonna make it to Paypal's level of TPS only in 2024? What if we get there less than 5 years from now? Is this really "unlikely"? I honestly don't think so especially if you and others have your way and attempt to fit every single transactions on the Bitcoin blockchain. Remember that "supply creates its own demand".

My concern is that I'm not sure it is safe for the decentralization of the network to try to handle 32mb per blocks within 2020, much less 64. In my mind this would necessarily imply an important if not dangerous decrease in the range of entities who are able to run full nodes. I don't want to hear anything about the amount of nodes as it is not a reliable indicator. As much as cypherdoc would like to believe that an individual running multiple nodes improves the decentralization of the network this is obviously not the case. Finally I'm also worried we would find ourselves in a much worse spot than we already are in regards to mining centralization.

My point is this reliance on block size increase as a scaling solution is a slippery road. One that if we do not travel through cautiously could seriously hinder the security of the network and ultimately result in turning Bitcoin into pale copy of Ripple.

[1713866588]

1713866588

[1713866588]

1713866588

[1713866588]

1713866588

[iCEBREAKER]

There is no such thing as a store of value.

There is no such thing as a thing.

Separateness is an illusion.  All that exists is the Unified Field and the Void (sort of).

Oh sorry, I thought I was in a late night dorm room session discussing our Epistomology 101 homework, not a thread for adults focused on the practical implications of Gold vs Bitcoin.

Yo dawg, pass that sick glass you got at Pipes Plus over here...   

[Peter R]

Here is what I'm thinking: considering you are hell bent on selling the world on the value of the Bitcoin payment network, do you reasonably believe that Bitcoin is gonna make it to Paypal's level of TPS only in 2024? What if we get there less than 5 years from now? Is this really "unlikely"? I honestly don't think so especially if you and others have your way and attempt to fit every single transactions on the Bitcoin blockchain. Remember that "supply creates its own demand".

My concern is that I'm not sure it is safe for the decentralization of the network to try to handle 32mb per blocks within 2020, much less 64. In my mind this would necessarily imply an important if not dangerous decrease in the range of entities who are able to run full nodes. I don't want to hear anything about the amount of nodes as it is not a reliable indicator. As much as cypherdoc would like to believe that an individual running multiple nodes improves the decentralization of the network this is obviously not the case. Finally I'm also worried we would find ourselves in a much worse spot than we already are in regards to mining centralization.

My point is this reliance on block size increase as a scaling solution is a slippery road. One that if we do not travel through cautiously could seriously hinder the security of the network and ultimately result in turning Bitcoin into pale copy of Ripple.

Thank you for this response.  I think it is was valid and I can appreciate your concern.  I also think it serves to illustrate the ideological divide between you and me.  

Me, I think the most probable way that Bitcoin fails is by lack of adoption and growth.  I see the 1 MB limit as the greatest technical blockage in this regard.  

You, on the other hand, seem to be most worried about failure via centralization, and see a larger block size limit as contributing to the very failure mode you see as most likely.  

And therein lies the problem.  Although we both want success for Bitcoin, what I see as a panacea you see as a poison.  

For the record, here's my take: we probably all remember the first time we received a real bitcoin transaction.  I do.  I was using the blockchain.info wallet on my iPhone and had purchased about 0.4 BTC from canadianbitcoins by depositing $20 cash into their RBC bank account.  I remember a couple hours later my phone made a funny noise, and sure enough, boom, there was $20 of BTC in my wallet!  I thought that was pretty amazing!!  I then sent coins back and forth between different wallets, watching the transactions nearly instantly propagate, and the enormity of what was happening really sunk in: these transactions were being relayed to every node across the world, double, triple, quadruple checked, and then being logged to an unforgeable ledger that was stored redundantly all over the globe.  And all this was happening--not because of some bank or government initiative--but because normal people came together to make it happen.  And because it was a peer-to-peer initiative, access was so affordable that even the poorest of people on the planet could participate.  

I think more people need to share that experience.  And for that, we need bigger blocks.  

[brg444]

Here is what I'm thinking: considering you are hell bent on selling the world on the value of the Bitcoin payment network, do you reasonably believe that Bitcoin is gonna make it to Paypal's level of TPS only in 2024? What if we get there less than 5 years from now? Is this really "unlikely"? I honestly don't think so especially if you and others have your way and attempt to fit every single transactions on the Bitcoin blockchain. Remember that "supply creates its own demand".

My concern is that I'm not sure it is safe for the decentralization of the network to try to handle 32mb per blocks within 2020, much less 64. In my mind this would necessarily imply an important if not dangerous decrease in the range of entities who are able to run full nodes. I don't want to hear anything about the amount of nodes as it is not a reliable indicator. As much as cypherdoc would like to believe that an individual running multiple nodes improves the decentralization of the network this is obviously not the case. Finally I'm also worried we would find ourselves in a much worse spot than we already are in regards to mining centralization.

My point is this reliance on block size increase as a scaling solution is a slippery road. One that if we do not travel through cautiously could seriously hinder the security of the network and ultimately result in turning Bitcoin into pale copy of Ripple.

Thank you for this response.  I think it is was valid and I can appreciate your concern.  I also think it serves to illustrate the ideological divide between you and me.  

Me, I think the most probable way that Bitcoin fails is by lack of adoption and growth.  I see the 1 MB limit as the greatest technical blockage in this regard.  

You, on the other hand, seem to be most worried about failure via centralization, and see a larger block size limit as contributing to the very failure mode you see as most likely.  

And therein lies the problem.  Although we both want success for Bitcoin, what I see as a panacea you see as a poison.  

For the record, here's my take: we probably all remember the first time we received a real bitcoin transaction.  I do.  I was using the blockchain.info wallet on my iPhone and had purchased about 0.4 BTC from canadianbitcoins by depositing $20 cash into their RBC bank account.  I remember a couple hours later my phone made a funny noise, and sure enough, boom, there was $20 of BTC in my wallet!  I thought that was pretty amazing!!  I then sent coins back and forth between different wallets, watching the transactions nearly instantly propagate, and the enormity of what was happening really sunk in: these transactions were being relayed to every node across the world, double, triple, quadruple checked, and then being logged to an unforgeable ledger that was stored redundantly at nodes all across the world.  And all this was happening--not because of some bank or government initiative--but because normal people came together to make it happen.  And because it was a peer-to-peer initiative, access was so affordable that even the poorest of people on the planet could participate.  

I think more people need to share that experience.  And for that, we need bigger blocks.  

While I share your nostalgia, I happen to think that the experience of the users of tomorrow, the mainstream public you would like to see adopt Bitcoin, will be so unlike anything we are experiencing it makes little sense expecting this on-boarding process to remain "the same".

You might disagree with me but my opinion is that the masses, as they exist right now, will never approach the level of direct engagement we currently experience with Bitcoin, the blockchain and the related ecosystem. By that I mean that you can forget about them ever being introduced or interested in the concept of nodes, transaction propagation, redundancy, block explorers. A regular person is not approaching or trusting a blockchain.info wallet, much less trusting it with their money.

Now, as for the last statement, that may change. In fact I expect it to and that is why I am very confident (to the dislike of some perhaps..) that customer focused approaches such as Coinbase, Circle, BitReserve and others will have tremendous success. These customer experiences will not only surpass the one you described but make it look ancient & obsolete by its abstraction of almost anything Bitcoin and the presence of familiar user experience. As much as you'd like to convince yourself of the contrary, the existing popularity of such services confirm that most people simply do not care whether or not their transaction is settled directly on the Bitcoin blockchain. We should all hope this will eventually change and I too share the dream of "everyone being their own bank" but this is frankly a dangerous utopy at this point

There is a whole world of abstraction needed before ever pretending to a potent mainstream consumer adoption of Bitcoin.

My advise to you is to start looking at growth in another light. While it seems reasonable to track "adoption & growth" by an increase in the userbase, I have recently come to the conclusion that what might be even more preferable is a growth in capital.

I guess this comes back to our different idea of Bitcoin's value proposition but to put it shortly, my opinion is that more expensive transaction fees on the blockchain will hardly hinder the adoption of capital looking to buy a spot and park their money in the unforgeable ledger. That is because bitcoins are a unique collectible unlike anything the world has seen since gold. Unfortunately much like gold some characteristics limit its direct use as a mean of exchange. Gold's shortcoming is in its physicality, Bitcoin's own is the decentralization tradeoff.

Fortunately Bitcoin being digital, the technical solutions to this problem are unlimited and will only improve in quality, reliance and decreasing need for trust. I understand this is not a popular position but let me make it clear: I absolutely propose that in the future any Bitcoin user will have to consider the cost of transacting on the blockchain and perhaps opt for other options if they feel there is no need to have their transaction validated under the "ultimate" trustlessness of the blockchain.

[iCEBREAKER]

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

Nobody cares.  We are far more interested in reading the presumably lulzy forthcoming Gavinista Manifesto.   

[sickpig]

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)

you know what I can't stop thinking that the max block size is a transport layer constraint that have crept in consensus layer.

So I'd say that yes "space" in the blockchain is a scarce resource (*), hence you need to pay a price for it (i.e. txs fee), but to me the max block size mustn't be used to determine (or influence) the price of such resource .

Bitcoin tokens emission process (miner subsidy) and free market should be the main forces in the blockchain space price discover mechanism.

(*) scarcity is directly connected to bitcoin trustlessness

[solex]

My advise to you is to start looking at growth in another light. While it seems reasonable to track "adoption & growth" by an increase in the userbase, I have recently come to the conclusion that what might be even more preferable is a growth in capital.

I guess this comes back to our different idea of Bitcoin's value proposition but to put it shortly, my opinion is that more expensive transaction fees on the blockchain will hardly hinder the adoption of capital looking to buy a spot and park their money in the unforgeable ledger. That is because bitcoins are a unique collectible unlike anything the world has seen since gold. Unfortunately much like gold some characteristics limit its direct use as a mean of exchange. Gold's shortcoming is in its physicality, Bitcoin's own is the decentralization tradeoff.

This is just for the record as Peter is doing an admirable job of explaining things, I have highlighted the fundamental failings in your logic which makes you come to the wrong conclusion. I fully expect you to ignore this and hand-wave it away, but here goes...

1. Growth in capital is a reactive process, it is a market response to the growth of  the whole ecosystem. There have been altcoins with enormous early capital such as Auroracoin where $100 million in market cap rapidly went to zero, like morning mist in the sun. This was because the capital temporarily existed but there was no ecosystem to maintain it.

2. Bitcoins are not a "unique collectible" because while bitcoins are truly finite, cryptocurrency is infinite. Litecoin is just Bitcoin with a different name and a few minor software changes. Many new coins exist such as Monero and NXT and Etherium. ALL of these could do the job of Bitcoin if Bitcoin vanished. The only thing keeping Bitcoin at No.1 is a positive feedback loop: ecosystem usage (transactions) > utility value -> market price -> mining power -> PoW security of blockchain -> more public interest -> more ecosystem usage

The problem with the 1MB is that it will eventually cripple this all-important feedback loop.

you know what I can't stop thinking that the max block size is a transport layer constraint that have crept in consensus layer.

Now, that is a profound observation.

[boumalo]

Gold is weak but we will eventually get a currency crisis in the US, the FED will have to raise rates. Gold's price in usd will go up.

[smoothie]

If there ever as a fork to XT (consensus majority) it would be interesting to see how the exchange rates (assuming they are not all on XT or core) would be.

I can see an XT or core whale dumping their coins on an exchange that supports the opposite chain to the whale's liking.

Price volatility is in our future. Unlike how it has been in the past.

Interesting times.  

[cypherdoc]

holy begeez.  just did a speedtest on my internet connection.  had made some routing changes that seem to have worked:

[Zarathustra]

There's not too many things you can do in this country to piss people  off  more than violating their First Amendment rights.

Go theymos!

You don't have a 1A right to post on privately owned sites, period.

Yes, libertarian people (cypherdoc) even don't moderate insulting posts of the trolls (tvbcof, iCE et al.) in their threads, while totalitarian people even don't allow some non-insulting posts and opposition. The latter are supported by cheerleaders with totalitarian mentality. Pardon my bad English. I hope you know what I mean.

[cypherdoc]

looks to me like this post by Mike has been taken down off the main page by mods:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3griiv/on_consensus_and_forks_by_mike_hearn/

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

looks to me like this post by Mike has been taken down off the main page by mods:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3griiv/on_consensus_and_forks_by_mike_hearn/

Still there for me. If they were taking it this far, modding a heavily commented thread off the front page, that would generate some serious blowback, so I doubt they would.

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

holy begeez.  just did a speedtest on my internet connection.  had made some routing changes that seem to have worked:

Here's mine. $30 a month



Though Greg or someone will pipe in and say Speedtest does some kind of test that isn't that real-world relevant or something.

[cypherdoc]

holy begeez.  just did a speedtest on my internet connection.  had made some routing changes that seem to have worked:

Here's mine. $30 a month

yeah, but you're in Norway 

[cypherdoc]

looks to me like this post by Mike has been taken down off the main page by mods:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3griiv/on_consensus_and_forks_by_mike_hearn/

Still there for me. If they were taking it this far, modding a heavily commented thread off the front page, that would generate some serious blowback, so I doubt they would.

hmm, back up for me too.  WTF?

/u/raisethelimit has been having all sorts of problems:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gsxqf/all_my_posts_are_currently_being_censored_this_is/cu19uva?context=3

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

looks to me like this post by Mike has been taken down off the main page by mods:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3griiv/on_consensus_and_forks_by_mike_hearn/

Still there for me. If they were taking it this far, modding a heavily commented thread off the front page, that would generate some serious blowback, so I doubt they would.

hmm, back up for me too.  WTF?

/u/raisethelimit has been having all sorts of problems:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gsxqf/all_my_posts_are_currently_being_censored_this_is/cu19uva?context=3

This is the second time in the past few days it has looked like a possible internal squabble among the mods. Perhaps someone is hiding them and someone else is reinstating them.

[cypherdoc]

they're still lying to you:

[cypherdoc]

looks to me like this post by Mike has been taken down off the main page by mods:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3griiv/on_consensus_and_forks_by_mike_hearn/

Still there for me. If they were taking it this far, modding a heavily commented thread off the front page, that would generate some serious blowback, so I doubt they would.

hmm, back up for me too.  WTF?

/u/raisethelimit has been having all sorts of problems:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gsxqf/all_my_posts_are_currently_being_censored_this_is/cu19uva?context=3

This is the second time in the past few days it has looked like a possible internal squabble among the mods. Perhaps someone is hiding them and someone else is reinstating them.

unless the eye doctor has bad eyes, which he doesn't, then i swear it wasn't there 30 min ago.

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

StarMaged and others vs. theymos, BashCo, etc.?