Gavin Andresen Proposes Bitcoin Hard Fork to Address Network Scalability

[iluvpie60]

I have seen your posts and you do troll. I could go back to a thread from something and post your quote where you admit that you troll for the fun of it. You treated me badly before in a thread from the past and it is whatever honestly.

No, that was me, and I still say you were trolling first in that thread.  However, in this thread, I agree with you.

if they fork once they will fork twice... 

If you don't like that, then you need to get a time machine and go back in time to stop them from forking the first time.

what do you mean no that was you? The thread I am referencing is something from months back and I don't think I ever quoted you on anything but I may be mistaken because I am not going to take the time to search through every post I ever made. But I am pretty sure I have never said anything to you.

[iluvpie60]

meaning fees will need to be higher. It is not intended for fees to be so high early on, that comes later.
... So if there are too many transactions going through that it goes over 1MB consistently only the higher value fees will be taken which makes fees go up in price.

tada the protocol already found the answer itself... no need for fork. Who said the most precious numbers were cheap to transact? use an alt for your tipping.

edit: you can put a k for thousand and a M for millions... but I don't think you need to learn the next letters... even in your fantasies...

Actually... M is a 1,000 and MM is a 1,000 x 1,000, or 1,000,000. When speaking of financials($) that is one of the most correct ways of doing it that is universally understood in the plant of Earth. It appears in all popular formats including banking statements, IPO releases from companies, stock indexes, most financial documents, ETC....

"M" should be be used with numbers that are related with intangible and conceptual subjects like money, time, and counting. The "k" is related to the "M"(always a lower-case k) which is the abbreviation for kilo-. 'k' abbreviation should be used with things that are tangible and physical, like distance and weight.

Confusion comes from a former symbol abbreviation of an "M" with an overstrike or overbar. The overbar means that the mille unit (1,000) is multiplied again by 1,000 because MM = M * M in math. A number followed by an M with an overstrike then means that the preceding number is multiplied by 1,000,000.

Since it is very difficult to create this symbol and most people do not know keyboard shortcuts or how to make it, it is hardly ever seen and is improperly abbreviated as a single "M" instead of the proper "MM".
This grammar rule is not very well known outside the financial world and will often be used incorrectly and the slang of "k" for thousand is often used even by venerated publications such as the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal. 

So I notice your message under your name says you are trolling, but you actually thought that you were right so you were not trolling in this scenario, just uninformed.

[cambda]

Finally good news, even Satoshi told the 1MB limit is temporary.

But easier would be double maxblocksize every block reward halving, to make Bitcoin simple...

50 BTC = 1 MB
25 BTC = 2 MB
12.5 BTC = 4 MB

and so on.

[jbreher]

Actually... M is a 1,000 and MM is a 1,000 x 1,000, or 1,000,000. When speaking of financials($) that is one of the most correct ways of doing it that is universally understood in the plant of Earth. It appears in all popular formats including banking statements, IPO releases from companies, stock indexes, most financial documents, ETC....

"M" should be be used with numbers that are related with intangible and conceptual subjects like money, time, and counting. The "k" is related to the "M"(always a lower-case k) which is the abbreviation for kilo-. 'k' abbreviation should be used with things that are tangible and physical, like distance and weight.

Confusion comes from a former symbol abbreviation of an "M" with an overstrike or overbar. The overbar means that the mille unit (1,000) is multiplied again by 1,000 because MM = M * M in math. A number followed by an M with an overstrike then means that the preceding number is multiplied by 1,000,000.

Since it is very difficult to create this symbol and most people do not know keyboard shortcuts or how to make it, it is hardly ever seen and is improperly abbreviated as a single "M" instead of the proper "MM".
This grammar rule is not very well known outside the financial world and will often be used incorrectly and the slang of "k" for thousand is often used even by venerated publications such as the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal.  

So I notice your message under your name says you are trolling, but you actually thought that you were right so you were not trolling in this scenario, just uninformed.

orly?

I can point to any number of formally adopted international standards adopted by accredited standards organizations which are unanimous on the SI system of prefixes. As a serious question, can you point to the same for your financial-based prefix system you describe above?

[BittBurger]

Gavin has made a *lot* of insinuations lately that he is somewhat alone in his views on what to do with the Protocol.

He constantly mentions that the "other core devs" don't agree with him on much.

Who are these brilliant scholars that are turning the Bitcoin Protocol into the US Congress?   Completely unable to make decisions, be agreeable, and move forward?

Gavin can propose anything he likes, and we can all love it, but if this mysterious *CENTRALIZED* group of core devs doesn't like it, they wont have a "CONCENSUS".

Concensus is supposed to be from the entire community.  Not a handful of programmers who have zero education or training in finance.

-B-

[iluvpie60]

Actually... M is a 1,000 and MM is a 1,000 x 1,000, or 1,000,000. When speaking of financials($) that is one of the most correct ways of doing it that is universally understood in the plant of Earth. It appears in all popular formats including banking statements, IPO releases from companies, stock indexes, most financial documents, ETC....

"M" should be be used with numbers that are related with intangible and conceptual subjects like money, time, and counting. The "k" is related to the "M"(always a lower-case k) which is the abbreviation for kilo-. 'k' abbreviation should be used with things that are tangible and physical, like distance and weight.

Confusion comes from a former symbol abbreviation of an "M" with an overstrike or overbar. The overbar means that the mille unit (1,000) is multiplied again by 1,000 because MM = M * M in math. A number followed by an M with an overstrike then means that the preceding number is multiplied by 1,000,000.

Since it is very difficult to create this symbol and most people do not know keyboard shortcuts or how to make it, it is hardly ever seen and is improperly abbreviated as a single "M" instead of the proper "MM".
This grammar rule is not very well known outside the financial world and will often be used incorrectly and the slang of "k" for thousand is often used even by venerated publications such as the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal.  

So I notice your message under your name says you are trolling, but you actually thought that you were right so you were not trolling in this scenario, just uninformed.

orly?

I can point to any number of formally adopted international standards adopted by accredited standards organizations which are unanimous on the SI system of prefixes. As a serious question, can you point to the same for your financial-based prefix system you describe above?

As a serious answer, I was giving a history lesson on what the correct notation is before it was bastardized by other organizations not too long ago. There isn't any room to argue on this as it is historically accurate.


http://www.accountingcoach.com/blog/what-does-m-and-mm-stand-for

http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/181917/mixing-use-of-k-for-thousands-and-mm-for-millions

http://www.bankersonline.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=94526

[justusranvier]

Gavin has made a *lot* of insinuations lately that he is somewhat alone in his views on what to do with the Protocol.

He constantly mentions that the "other core devs" don't agree with him on much.

Who are these brilliant scholars that are turning the Bitcoin Protocol into the US Congress?   Completely unable to make decisions, be agreeable, and move forward?

Gavin can propose anything he likes, and we can all love it, but if this mysterious *CENTRALIZED* group of core devs doesn't like it, they wont have a "CONCENSUS".

Concensus is supposed to be from the entire community.  Not a handful of programmers who have zero education or training in finance.

-B-

It seems like there are a lot of people around with financial incentives to keep Bitcoin from advancing any further, even people who are nominally part of the "Bitcoin community".

[Cryddit]

As a serious answer, I was giving a history lesson on what the correct notation is before it was bastardized by other organizations not too long ago. There isn't any room to argue on this as it is historically accurate.


http://www.accountingcoach.com/blog/what-does-m-and-mm-stand-for

http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/181917/mixing-use-of-k-for-thousands-and-mm-for-millions

http://www.bankersonline.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=94526

Interesting.  I had no idea, and I've BEEN working with financial data. 

Pretty much everything I've seen has used SI prefixes here in the US.  On the (rare) occasions where I've seen 'M' used to mean thousands I've briefly wondered whether it was a typo or a deliberate misstatement, but since the truth was clear enough for other reasons in those particular documents, never pursued it.

Anyway, I'm sticking with SI prefixes in everything I write.  It's the nearly-universal standard now and the sooner everybody stops using everything else the less confusion we'll have.  But now that I know some people have learned an obsolete system that will cause them to misinterpret SI prefixes, I'll at least make a footnote that says so.

[BitMos]

one sure thing, I need practice in trolling, you guys rocks, what 10 posts on k or m, when the issue is forking or not forking

[ANTIcentralized]

Finally good news, even Satoshi told the 1MB limit is temporary.

But easier would be double maxblocksize every block reward halving, to make Bitcoin simple...

50 BTC = 1 MB
25 BTC = 2 MB
12.5 BTC = 4 MB

and so on.

This is not far from what gavin had proposed.His proposal would involve a higher rate of block size increases due to more frequent compounding. Your suggestion would make it very easy to remember when the max block size will increase and would likely require much smaller changes to the code then what gavin is proposing

[jbreher]

I can point to any number of formally adopted international standards adopted by accredited standards organizations which are unanimous on the SI system of prefixes. As a serious question, can you point to the same for your financial-based prefix system you describe above?

As a serious answer, I was giving a history lesson on what the correct notation is before it was bastardized by other organizations not too long ago. There isn't any room to argue on this as it is historically accurate.


http://www.accountingcoach.com/blog/what-does-m-and-mm-stand-for

http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/181917/mixing-use-of-k-for-thousands-and-mm-for-millions

http://www.bankersonline.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=94526

Thanks for the references. I can see there that there is some sentiment there for M=1000, MM=1000000. However, none of these seems to rise to the level of an accredited international standards organization - such as the American National Standards Institute, British Institute of Standards, [International Standards Organization], or similar - each of which have standardized the use of SI prefixes. Further, your bankersonline reference seems to indicate that the traditional financial prefixes may be an anachronism on its way to disuse.

However, tradition is a strong force. I'll leave the bankers to their traditional units. I just worry the potential of magnitude errors as these two systems clash. Indeed the bankersonline link you provided already alludes to such a problem.

To those not interested, sorry for the sidebar. I'll drop this line of inquiry.

[BitMos]

Finally good news, even Satoshi told the 1MB limit is temporary.

But easier would be double maxblocksize every block reward halving, to make Bitcoin simple...

50 BTC = 1 MB
25 BTC = 2 MB
12.5 BTC = 4 MB

and so on.

This is not far from what gavin had proposed.His proposal would involve a higher rate of block size increases due to more frequent compounding. Your suggestion would make it very easy to remember when the max block size will increase and would likely require much smaller changes to the code then what gavin is proposing

I wouldn't call that a fork, but an improvement. And it's quite elegant. I support it too...

[The00Dustin]

I wouldn't call that a fork, but an improvement. And it's quite elegant. I support it too...

A hard fork is a change that older versions will reject.  Older versions will certainly reject a 1.1MB block no matter what you call a change to allow it.  It's nice that you are starting to understand what is actually being proposed,  but this would not be the first or last fork of bitcoin regardless of your definition and/or acceptance of the same.

[BitMos]

who cares... what I like about this one, is that even I, can understand it... However, and to your disappointment I am firmly against the proposition of Gavin (even if I didn't read it) for the reason that it's too complex, and only a feat for the devs, not for the coin... if you see what I mean...

edit: if you want (for your dream of world domination) you could even square it, meaning at 6.25 BTC = 16 MB and so on...

[tvbcof]

Gavin has made a *lot* of insinuations lately that he is somewhat alone in his views on what to do with the Protocol.

He constantly mentions that the "other core devs" don't agree with him on much.

Who are these brilliant scholars that are turning the Bitcoin Protocol into the US Congress?   Completely unable to make decisions, be agreeable, and move forward?

Gavin can propose anything he likes, and we can all love it, but if this mysterious *CENTRALIZED* group of core devs doesn't like it, they wont have a "CONCENSUS".

Concensus is supposed to be from the entire community.  Not a handful of programmers who have zero education or training in finance.

-B-

It seems like there are a lot of people around with financial incentives to keep Bitcoin from advancing any further, even people who are nominally part of the "Bitcoin community".

If by 'advancing any further' you mean not becoming manageable enough to meet the spirit of the demands necessary to achieve what the U.S. government would like to have in a Bitcoin License, I would agree.  Certain of them are much more than 'nominally' involved though.

In terms of 'financial incentive', I've little doubt that prostrating Bitcoin to TPTB while the marketing propaganda has most people convinced it is otherwise and thus has a coolness factor would produce a sweet spot where possessors could make a killing if they got the timing right.  I'll certainly be shooting for that if I see the opportunity present itself.

Win/win for the hodler who still has some hope for the solution.  It either under-performs (in the mid term at least) and remains a worthwhile endeavor, or it goes to shit and makes the shrewd player some big buck.

[Patel]

I hope we can just make our decision and get it done soon instead of debating about it for another year. Based on reading these threads, the majority consensus is that block size needs to increase. Satoshi said it himself 1mb can be changed in the future.

[tvbcof]

I hope we can just make our decision and get it done soon instead of debating about it for another year. Based on reading these threads, the majority consensus is that block size needs to increase. Satoshi said it himself 1mb can be changed in the future.

Ya, ya.  Get that exponential growth in there lickidy-spilt quick ASAP before sidechains make it obvious that it is pointless and counterproductive.  Nothing like an exponential function to ensure that something will eventually explode, and it would be a disaster for a lot of people if there was a chance that Bitcoin could be relied on on a sustained basis.  When a collapse can be predicted, even if it is decades out, it does wonders for future-value computations (if one wishes them to be damaged, that is.)

Sarcasm aside, it actually is a little bit questionable whether 7 TPS would be enough to comfortable support a thriving sidechains ecosystem.  Such a thing would be almost infinitely adaptable, however, so probably it would be OK.  It always seemed to me (years ago when I proposed 'bc0' for the primary blockchain and long before 'sidechains' were proposed as a word) that transfers between child chains and the main chain would be bundled.

[cbeast]

"If Bitcoin is to remain decentralized, it must have larger blocks."
Of course we need bigger blocks. Some people still think scrypt is a good idea in that bigger memory requirements improve decentralization. Bigger is better. Why can't this "scrypt mentality" work for block size too? If the blocks are bigger, then Bitcoin will be more decentralized. It's the same argument for Litecoin, except on a different scale. With Litecoin the notion was that the CPU would dominate mining because it would be unaffordable to develop ASICs to handle the memory requirements. With block size doubling it is believed it will be unaffordable for people to transmit and store the blockchain. This example uses contradictory notions about size to make the point that size doesn't matter. This is not a cryptology (or philosophy) problem, it is an engineering problem. "Scotty, get me Warp Nine!"

[BitMos]

Who said already that 32ko would be enough  ?

[The00Dustin]

Ya, ya.  Get that exponential growth in there lickidy-spilt quick ASAP before sidechains make it obvious that it is pointless and counterproductive.  Nothing like an exponential function to ensure that something will eventually explode, and it would be a disaster for a lot of people if there was a chance that Bitcoin could be relied on on a sustained basis.  When a collapse can be predicted, even if it is decades out, it does wonders for future-value computations (if one wishes them to be damaged, that is.)

Sarcasm aside, it actually is a little bit questionable whether 7 TPS would be enough to comfortable support a thriving sidechains ecosystem.  Such a thing would be almost infinitely adaptable, however, so probably it would be OK.  It always seemed to me (years ago when I proposed 'bc0' for the primary blockchain and long before 'sidechains' were proposed as a word) that transfers between child chains and the main chain would be bundled.

Are you suggesting that it makes more sense to fork bitcoin so that microtransactions can be processed and ultimately repatriated in a separate decentralized sidechain?  That seems like a much more complicated fork with little to no additional potential benefit.  Without such a fork, it seems to me that switching to a sidechain for everday transactions would only benefit arbitragers and scammers.

IOW, in order for your bitcoin to move based on activity on a sidechain, you would have to trade into whatever the sidechain has, which means at least temporarily giving control of your assets to a third party.  Speculators can make money trading the sidechain currency, but from a security standpoint, the activity required to switch to such a sidechain is a short term risk, see Mt.Gox et al.  If the sidechain you propose is something like Ripple, then it's not even decentralized, and users would have to give up control of their assets for as long as they wanted to take advantage of the "sidechain" extending the same scam risk.  Beyond that, why are we calling it a sidechain?  Even if it is decentralized and somehow references bitcoin blocks, it still sounds like an altcoin to me.  I believe the purpose of sidechains is to take advantage of the bitcoin blockchain for non-currency functions.

That having been said, I agree that growing exponentially indefinitely is a bad idea, but given the last of the halvings would be dealing in small fractions of bitcoins, it should be reasonable to do something like this:

50 BTC = 1 MB
25 BTC = 2 MB
12.5 BTC = 4 MB

and so on.

of course, I've not done any math to determine whether doubling is necessary for each step (vs increasing by 25% after 16MB or only increasing by a set MB amount after a certain MB target), my point is simply that the blocksize increases could stop with last halving, and that this isn't a bad point either:

suggestion would make it very easy to remember when the max block size will increase and would likely require much smaller changes to the code then what gavin is proposing