Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Erdogan]

So if there is a blocksize based fork, and the largeblock branch can hold the lead for a few hours, the branch based on smallblocks will disappear quickly. There will probably not be time to establish the infrastructure to allow trading between them, and no time to create confusion whether a specific payment is valid or not.

If the largeblock branch can not hold for a few hours, it will disappear, it will act like a failed attempt at changing the blocksize. A new largeblock can then be attempted later, when a miner is sufficiently certain that it will succeed.

tl;dr A fork based on a largeblock is totally not destructive.

[cypherdoc]

I think the answer is much simpler than this.

Which network will be easier and less expensive  to plug up with a spam attack for a prolonged period of time?

[Erdogan]

I think the answer is much simpler than this.

Which network will be easier and less expensive  to plug up with a spam attack for a prolonged period of time?

If that was a comment directed towards me - I don't understand.

[solex]

So the issue I see with BIP100 is if the majority of Miners collude to form a cartel to set the limit they can set it too low to suite the cartel's preferences, the difference between BIP 100 and BIP 101 to me, is that BIP100 miners cant leave the carrell and mine bigger blocks if there is a market for it, in the case with BIP100 the cartel needs to vote.

Whereas with BIP101 Miners can form a cartel but if it becomes more profitable to mine larger blocks they can break from the cartel without having to get a majority vote.

the innate incentive that limits the ability for cartels to form is important, BIP 100 is a change to an innate incentive in Bitcoin.  

Playing devils advocate here and creating a worse case scenario, imagine the optimal market equilibrium for block size and transaction cost resulted in the demand for a 16MB block, a majority of miners could form a voting cartel, and set a limit at 8MB, there would be no reason to do this in a free market because they would loose revenue, but in a controlled market for transaction fees where Sidechains exist, it becomes possible to manipulate the block size to undermine competition, a simple way to do it would be to limit your completion's revenue by limiting block size, if you were uncompetitive in block propagation that would give you an unfair advantage. In the case with SideChains the cartel could supplement revenue by being paid to Merge Mining side-chains that other miners dont have assess too.

giving the power to set block size to the miners by vote of the majority seems to me will ultimately tend towards centralization, where in BIP101 this power is vested in the market and incentives that govern it. More important, it's not a change to Satosis design which seems to have the incentive balance just right.  

I agree that there is more risk inherent in BIP 100 than 101 and 101 has simplicity in line with Satoshi's original vision.
There is a risk that miners might vote for a lower block limit than the ecosystem needs and cripple volumes. Although I think that incentives will prevent it, in the same way that the 3 different pools which got 50% of the network hashing power continued to behave. Miners don't want to cripple the ecosystem as it will tank the price, and they do want to handle more tx as it means more fees, which will be really important after the reward halves next year.

If miners made a small block limit to force volume onto a SC which is merge-mined by them it would be obvious to the community who can then boycott's the rogue SC's merchant services, and use a different SC. Also, this type of event should be seen a mile off and a new BIP raised to modify the voting, or just go with 101 instead.

At present I think either BIP is a vast improvement over the existing situation.

[Peter R]

So if there is a blocksize based fork, and the largeblock branch can hold the lead for a few hours, the branch based on smallblocks will disappear quickly. There will probably not be time to establish the infrastructure to allow trading between them, and no time to create confusion whether a specific payment is valid or not.

If the largeblock branch can not hold for a few hours, it will disappear, it will act like a failed attempt at changing the blocksize. A new largeblock can then be attempted later, when a miner is sufficiently certain that it will succeed.

tl;dr A fork based on a largeblock is totally not destructive.

Yes!

[solex]

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.

I think Bitcoins are absolutely a unique collectible. I hate to "call up" authority but its own creator was well aware of that:

Maybe it could get an initial value circularly as you’ve suggested, by people foreseeing its potential usefulness for exchange. (I would definitely want some) Maybe collectors, any random reason could spark it. - Satoshi Nakamoto

It might make sense just to get some in case it catches on. If enough people think the same way, that becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. -Satoshi Nakamoto

Aug. 27, 2010: Bitcoins have no dividend or potential future dividend, therefore not like a stock. (They’re) more like a collectible or commodity. - Satoshi Nakamoto

Satoshi quotes which are correct, but also relate to when BTC was the only cryptocurrency.
Today http://coinmarketcap.com has about 600 listed, including - if I choose one at random - Monero.

So, is a monero a unique collectible unlike anything the world has seen since gold? Yes or No!

[cypherdoc]

here's further evidence the Reddit mods are steering the blocksize debate. they're letting this guy spam attack me with false allegations despite me reporting him.  same post about a dozen times:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gutfp/if_youre_not_running_a_node_youre_not_really/cu1x6fl

Yesterday you were complaining about mod "censorship" and today you are demanding the same mods censor posts you don't like.

it's a repetitive spam attack; over a dozen times the exact same slanderous post attempt at character assassination.  have you forgotten the case seems to be going nowhere and that i deny the allegations?

everybody gets it already. i am a BitcoinXT proponent and i am a threat to you Cripplecoiners.  the HF dispute has nothing to do with it as much as you'd like to tie the two together.

but of course, i wouldn't expect you to see the difference.

[iCEBREAKER]

here's further evidence the Reddit mods are steering the blocksize debate. they're letting this guy spam attack me with false allegations despite me reporting him.  same post about a dozen times:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gutfp/if_youre_not_running_a_node_youre_not_really/cu1x6fl

Yesterday you were complaining about mod "censorship" and today you are demanding the same mods censor posts you don't like.

it's a repetitive spam attack; over a dozen times the exact same slanderous post attempt at character assassination.  have you forgotten the case seems to be going nowhere and that i deny the allegations?

everybody gets it already. i am a BitcoinXT proponent and i am a threat to you Cripplecoiners.  the HF dispute has nothing to do with it as much as you'd like to tie the two together.

but of course, i wouldn't expect you to see the difference.

My comment does not mention, or even allude to, the content of the posts.  As such, you are the only one who mentioned HF and XT.

The difference, as I see it, is that you cry censorship when off-topic posts you like are moderated, but turn on a dime to complain about lack of moderation when the posts in question do not suit you.

Make your own damn subreddit about FrappuccinoCoin if you don't like the BTC mods' "epitome of authoritarianism."  They are not your servants, and it's hilarious to watch your hypocrisy in action.

[cypherdoc]

here's further evidence the Reddit mods are steering the blocksize debate. they're letting this guy spam attack me with false allegations despite me reporting him.  same post about a dozen times:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gutfp/if_youre_not_running_a_node_youre_not_really/cu1x6fl

Yesterday you were complaining about mod "censorship" and today you are demanding the same mods censor posts you don't like.

it's a repetitive spam attack; over a dozen times the exact same slanderous post attempt at character assassination.  have you forgotten the case seems to be going nowhere and that i deny the allegations?

everybody gets it already. i am a BitcoinXT proponent and i am a threat to you Cripplecoiners.  the HF dispute has nothing to do with it as much as you'd like to tie the two together.

but of course, i wouldn't expect you to see the difference.

My comment does not mention, or even allude to, the content of the posts.  As such, you are the only one who mentioned HF and XT.

The difference, as I see it, is that you cry censorship when off-topic posts you like are moderated, but turn on a dime to complain about lack of moderation when the posts in question do not suit you.

Make your own damn subreddit about FrappuccinoCoin if you don't like the BTC mods' "epitome of authoritarianism."  They are not your servants, and it's hilarious to watch your hypocrisy in action.

yep, didn't think you'd be able to see the difference.

one being outright censorship that attempts to suppress discussion of the most important debate in the community today about Bitcoins future direction, ie the XT fork, and the other a nobody cares spammy personal slander attack that only started when i began speaking out in favor of bigger blocks.  not to mention by a coward who hides behind an anonymous identity.

[cypherdoc]

whoa.  look at that 7% drop in crude oil that just occurred.  someone wants out:

[Mengerian]

I'm actually quite excited about this idea.  It has a sort of inevitable feel to it.

Yes. Since anyone can run any software they want to interact with the Bitcoin network, this idea does seem like a logical development.

It also seems like one of those counter-intuitive anti-fragility things, where the seeming chaos and instability at a micro level will actually lead to a more predictable and stable behaviour at the macro level.

If it became more common for individual nodes to be able to tweak consensus parameters, then I think that would actually lead to more predictable and stable consensus behaviour in the long run. The worst thing that can happen to a node operator is to fall out of consensus with the rest of the network, so individual node operators would be strongly incentivised to develop methods to ensure they can track the status of the network, and deal with any potential consensus forks.

As it stands now, consensus behaviour is based on the specific implementation details of Bitcoin Core. The software is not designed with the assumption that hard consensus forks are a likely event, and when they do happen nodes are not designed to handle it gracefully. The accidental hard form of March 2013 happened because of an obscure implementation detail in the Core software, and was only possible because the software monoculture created a "single point of failure". A more diverse implementation of consensus rules might result in more frequent consensus divergences and orphaned blocks, but each one would be non-catastrophic, and would lead toward a more stable and resilient network in the long run.

[Natalia_AnatolioPAMM]

whoa.  look at that 7% drop in crude oil that just occurred.  someone wants out:

that looks terrifying to me

[smoothie]

As sickpig suggested, it would be a recognition that the block size limit is not part of the consensus layer, but rather part of the transport layer.

i never did quite get this part.  can you explain?

Sure.  

Why do we have a consensus layer in the first place?  It is a way for us to agree on what transactions are valid and what transactions are invalid.  For example, we all agree that Alice shouldn't be able to move Bob's coins without a valid signature, and that Bob shouldn't be able to create coins out of thin air.  The consensus layer is about obvious stuff like that.  In order for Bitcoin to function as sound money, we need to agree on "black-or-white" rules like this that define which transactions are valid and which are invalid.

Notice that the paragraph above discusses valid and invalid transactions.  No where did I say anything about blocks.  That's because we only really care about transactions in the first place!  In fact, how can a block be invalid just because it includes one too many valid transactions?  

Satoshi added the 1 MB limit as an anti-spam measure to deal with certain limitations of Bitcoin's transport layer--not as a new rule for what constitutes a valid transaction.  We should thus think of every block that is exclusively composed of valid transactions as itself valid.  The size of the block alone should not make it invalid.  Instead, if a block is too big, think of it as likely to be orphaned (a "gray" rule) rather than as invalid (a black-or-white rule).  Perhaps above a certain block size, we're even 100% sure that a block will be orphaned; still we should view it as a valid block!  It will be orphaned because the transport layer was insufficient to transport it across the network--not because there was anything invalid about it.

This ^

Most supporters of not changing the block size max limit (or even having one) forget that Satoshi originally put in that 1 MB limit as simply that: an anti-spam measure.

So doesn't that mean it would eventually be removed?

It seems like most people who support not changing the 1 MB limit are forgetting this very important fact.

Drama is only going to get worse within the community as long as there is discord between opinions on such a simple topic as "max block size cap".

Bitcoin (and its community) does not cease to amaze me how much drama ensues as Gavin has stated in the past.

If the drama means a lower BITCOIN price then great I can back the truck up and buy more.

[smooth]

Most supporters of not changing the block size max limit (or even having one) forget that Satoshi originally put in that 1 MB limit as simply that: an anti-spam measure.

So doesn't that mean it would eventually be removed?

Why would that logically make sense. Does spam no longer exist? Do you expect it to eventually not exist?

Peter R's idea of a per-node block size is intriguing. I'm still pondering it.

[smoothie]

here's further evidence the Reddit mods are steering the blocksize debate. they're letting this guy spam attack me with false allegations despite me reporting him.  same post about a dozen times:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gutfp/if_youre_not_running_a_node_youre_not_really/cu1x6fl

Yesterday you were complaining about mod "censorship" and today you are demanding the same mods censor posts you don't like.

it's a repetitive spam attack; over a dozen times the exact same slanderous post attempt at character assassination.  have you forgotten the case seems to be going nowhere and that i deny the allegations?

everybody gets it already. i am a BitcoinXT proponent and i am a threat to you Cripplecoiners.  the HF dispute has nothing to do with it as much as you'd like to tie the two together.

but of course, i wouldn't expect you to see the difference.

My comment does not mention, or even allude to, the content of the posts.  As such, you are the only one who mentioned HF and XT.

The difference, as I see it, is that you cry censorship when off-topic posts you like are moderated, but turn on a dime to complain about lack of moderation when the posts in question do not suit you.

Make your own damn subreddit about FrappuccinoCoin if you don't like the BTC mods' "epitome of authoritarianism."  They are not your servants, and it's hilarious to watch your hypocrisy in action.

yep, didn't think you'd be able to see the difference.

one being outright censorship that attempts to suppress discussion of the most important debate in the community today about Bitcoins future direction, ie the XT fork, and the other a nobody cares spammy personal slander attack that only started when i began speaking out in favor of bigger blocks.  not to mention by a coward who hides behind an anonymous identity.

Has iCEBRAKER not revealed his true identity yet?

ROFL!

[smooth]

So, is a monero a unique collectible unlike anything the world has seen since gold? Yes or No!

I think you mean to suggest no, but the answer might be yes. Satoshi proposed viewing Bitcoin as a new and unusual kind of metal with the property that it can be sent instantly over long distances. Monero is similar except that it has the ability to be sent over long distances without leaving a public record of having done so. Bitcoin and Monero are different in kind, but both new and usual kinds of "metals"

[smoothie]

Most supporters of not changing the block size max limit (or even having one) forget that Satoshi originally put in that 1 MB limit as simply that: an anti-spam measure.

So doesn't that mean it would eventually be removed?

Why would that logically make sense. Does spam no longer exist? Do you expect it to eventually not exist?

Peter R's idea of a per-node block size is intriguing. I'm still pondering it.

No.

The issue now is that bitcoin will eventually outgrow its 1MB max block size.

The economy/infrastructure of bitcoin is such that it can (in my view) set its own block sizes on its own (or with some moving averages of max and min block sizes) to be put into play in a dynamic fashion as opposed to hard coding a limit in.

Why hard code the limit when it can self-regulate based on current amount of transactions (averages over X time) and set a range that adjusts to periods that have more/less transactions.

Did you think Satoshi put that limit in at 1MB to be there forever?

[smooth]

Did you think Satoshi put that limit in at 1MB to be there forever?

No, I suspect he meant to add other mechanisms to control in-block spam in its place (or at least I might say, hoped to, but may not have known how to do it), but never got to it and no one else picked up that work either. Now we are kind of screwed.

[smoothie]

…
At this point I'd say just find a way to put the forks on the market and let's arbitrage it out. I will submit if a fork cannot gain the market cap advantage, and I suspect the small-blockers will likewise if Core loses it. Money talks.

I had a strange idea recently: what if we don't even bother with BIP100, BIP101, etc., or trying to come to "consensus" in some formal way.  What if, instead, we just make it very easy for node operators to adjust their block size limit.  Imagine a drop down menu where you can select "1 MB, 2 MB, 4 MB, 8 MB, … ."  What would happen?  

Personally, I'd just select some big block size limit, like 32 MB.  This way, I'd be guaranteed to follow the longest proof of work chain, regardless of what the effective block size limit becomes.  I'd expect many people to do the same thing.  Eventually, it becomes obvious that the economic majority is supporting a larger limit, and a brave miner publishes a block that is 1.1 MB is size.  We all witness that indeed that block got included into the longest proof of work chain, and then suddenly all miners are confident producing 1.1 MB blocks.  Thus, the effective block size limit slowly creeps upwards, as this process is repeated over and over as demand for block space grows.

TL/DR: maybe we don't need a strict definition for the max block size limit.

that's just a re-write of what i've been advocating; lift the limit entirely.

but yeah, your idea is great b/c it would give full node operators a sense of being in charge via a pull down menu.  i like it.

don't forget that mining pools are just huge hashing overlays of full nodes which they operate and could use to do the same type of voting.

Yes, you have been essentially advocating the same thing.  

We could take this idea further: in addition to the drop-down menu where node operators and miners select the max block size they'll accept, we could add two new features to improve communication of their decisions:

  1.  The max block size selected by a node would be written into the header of any blocks the node mines.

  2.  The P2P protocol would be extended so that nodes could poll other nodes to find out their block size limit.

This would be a highly decentralized way of coming to consensus in a very flexible and dynamic manner.  

It would be a recognition that the block size limit is not part of the consensus layer, but rather part of the transport layer, as sickpig suggested:

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

The network would dynamically determine the max block size as the network evolves by expressing the size of the blocks they will accept with the drop-down menu on their client.

So…is this a good idea?  If there are no obvious "gotchas" then perhaps we should write up a BIP.

So would this essentially be a voting mechanism on current block size (of course it can change dynamically on the next block)?

What % would determine that a block size has "consensus"?

Interesting idea...

Just wanted to say that I am open to the idea of having dynamically allocated block sizes as long as the overall network accepts it. I don't think this is a case of "dont fix something that aint broke" like some opponents of changing the max block size from 1 MB like to say, but rather a "let's find solutions to very probable problems coming down the road in bitcoin's future before as opposed to after"

Pro-active as opposed to reactive.

[smoothie]

Did you think Satoshi put that limit in at 1MB to be there forever?

No, I suspect he meant to add other mechanisms to control in-block spam in its place (or at least I might say, hoped to, but may not have known how to do it), but never got to it and no one else picked up that work either. Now we are kind of screwed.

How are we screwed if we have time to try to find solutions?

Even though there is a lot of drama and shit flinging fits around here, I still believe bitcoin (by its community of supporters) will find a solution to the cliff we are going to go over at some point.

Having intermediaries trying to profit by keeping the bitcoin block size at 1MB is questionable to me.