Fork off

[QuestionAuthority]

We know roughly 20% of the hash rate is of unknown origin. Does anyone else know if MP controls or has controlling interest any known pools?

He never made such a claim AFAIK, and even if he had 20% of the hashrate, that still wouldn't be quite enough to cause serious trouble, would it?

This thread would be so much more fun if MPOE-PR was still around.

Why, are you missing the big boobs?

Seriously, I don't get the point of his reluctance, i.e. why he makes such a big deal about it. Not that I care a lot, to be perfectly honest. Back in the days, Luke-jr also had some reluctance regarding newer versions of bitcoind, but IIRC they were a little more / better substantiated... and *he* was running a pool, unlike MP.

It wouldn't be enough to cause trouble. He would also need a known pool too. That's why I asked if the blowhard had control or controlling interest in any known pools.

Hey, I miss that avatar. 

I don't think he wants Bitcoin to grow because he would lose his perceived position of control. He's a horrible egomaniac and I can see him wanting to keep his small community of worshipers.

[VectorChief]

IMO when the bitcoin bull market returns in strength, practically every alt will get a coupon "good for one more pump and dump" along with it. If the bull market translates to the mass adoption tipping point this go around, I think there will be a definite gap open up between the top ~10 coins and "all the rest"as focus narrows. Then anything left behind will be looking increasingly like a "toy" coin, and I doubt will live more than a year or so after that. There maybe some persisting microeconomy of new pump and dump alts, for people who still want to play at the cryptocurrency game, but the world is getting more serious. By the end of 2015 you might have to wear a shirt and tie to post here  

lol, that talk. Bitcoin is a pump and dump coin itself. You bitcoiners are really scared of those other coins, aren't you?

They can just move faster, can't they? And they are mushrooming too. You must be sweating every night over altcoins.

Yeah, mushrooming! More food for Honey BTCadger, he is a hungry little bastard

Nothing can stop the honeybadger when it’s hungry. Oh, what a crazy fuck.

Exactly!

[cr1776]

Well rationally there is no way the present Bitcoin can win over a higher limit fork:

Step 1:
A. Gavin creates a higher limit BTC fork.
B. Anyone else does it.

Step 2:
Present network can never grow more than it is now, because we are already hitting the limits.

Step 3:
New system takes over by nature of being the biggest - which it cannot avoid becoming because it scales!

Good point. Very true.

As much as we would not want something else to overtake the present version of Bitcoin, if nothing is changed, it will inevitably happen once future transaction volume makes Bitcoin incapable of supporting it. That failure to meet the transaction volume would cripple Bitcoin's usability and open the door wide open for another currency to take over which can scale properly.

Not necessarily true. dont you think that the supply and demand reaction would take effect if we stopped mining bitcoin, or had no more supply?  

Bitcoin has a large community backing it, and I hardly think there going to junkyard every thing, it would bring the bitcoin stable, and make it better for community as a whole.

Just thinking on it as a currency not a commodity.

Realpra is right. Once the software is written for larger block sizes then any of the 1000 alts out there can incorporate it. Many will. Supply and demand then works against Bitcoin as demand will steadily weaken for a coin that cannot scale.
Dogecoin has a large community backing it, but that is not saving it from relentless decline.

From a technical point of view, just about the only change needed is to change a constant, eg:
14   static const unsigned int MAX_BLOCK_SIZE = 1000000;

Add a zero or two and voila.

I think any of the alts could have made block sizes 100 times bigger at any point so unless all really have little understanding of the code, the argument that alts are merely waiting on software and that they would use it seems to ring hallow.

Sidechains are one option to avoid a change in the block size if no one wants it, but Satoshi had no qualms about raising the hard limit at some point. (See https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1347.0 talking about raising the limit IF needed and having no debate about it being anti-Bitcoin).

[cr1776]

If you are in favor of this hard fork, you are in favor of the USG. Open up to the loving arms of big brother!

This is one reasonable claim I can agree with against a fork. The principle of not changing fundamentals. Because changing them once means you can change them again. And that opens the door to corruption. Is this your main argument against the fork?

I think Satoshi didn't consider the block size to be among fundamentals, but rather a temporary precaution against DDOS attacks. PoW's nature is such that it is hard to hide because of the physical presence, thus pretending that power players of today don't exist is meaningless. We need to make them accept the new rules and for that the volume cap needs to increase. We still have Litecoin if that route fails.

You are correct - I linked to what Satoshi said about the block size just above this and it was not something untouchable. (Not that we are bound by what he said, but anyone who argues that it is fundamental, never to be changed is just uninformed.)

[solex]

I think any of the alts could have made block sizes 100 times bigger at any point so unless all really have little understanding of the code, the argument that alts are merely waiting on software and that they would use it seems to ring hallow.

Most of them have probably accepted the code as is, because the block size limit is a long way off for any new coin. For an established coin the constant can't just be increased, the software needs a controlled switch-over. Doing it via majority block version number is best, although small communities can fork their code at a future block number.

The problem with the limit all along is that, for years, its effect is just psychological, until suddenly volumes ramp into the limit and it becomes a very real physical constraint. From a user perspective everything starts grinding to a halt, people can't transact without massive delays, they get angry, the press pours scorn on the failure, and says it proves a decentralized community can't be relied upon to maintain a currency. Some businesses have to look for alternatives.

In this climate all the alts which have a larger block limit trumpet their capability. One or two of them could gain traction and erode Bitcoin's first mover status. Serious erosion would result if nothing gets done.

I am unconvinced that sidechains help because sidechain volume also needs to be handled. Unless the SC is centralized, which raises all the trust issues again.

[bg002h]

This isn't worth talking much about.  It's a foregone conclusion that the anti-spam measure called Max_block_size that was quickly added to the code without much though in the first place (other than: "yup, that'll be plenty big for a while") was destined to increase.

The newbies that disagree just don't know the history of that kludge.

[Melbustus]

This isn't worth talking much about.  It's a foregone conclusion that the anti-spam measure called Max_block_size that was quickly added to the code without much though in the first place (other than: "yup, that'll be plenty big for a while") was destined to increase.

The newbies that disagree just don't know the history of that kludge.

Yup. That's why I keep posting this:

It can be phased in, like:

if (blocknumber > 115000)
    maxblocksize = largerlimit

It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.

When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade.

[jonald_fyookball]

then why do people like MP freak out?

[solex]

This isn't worth talking much about.  It's a foregone conclusion that the anti-spam measure called Max_block_size that was quickly added to the code without much though in the first place (other than: "yup, that'll be plenty big for a while") was destined to increase.

The newbies that disagree just don't know the history of that kludge.

Yup. That's why I keep posting this:

It can be phased in, like:

if (blocknumber > 115000)
    maxblocksize = largerlimit

It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.

When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade.

I honestly believe that after Satoshi disappeared he later remembered this change was left out, and thought to himself "Damn. I should have done it when I had the chance. It'll get done .. I'm sure ... I hope I don't regret this."

[Melbustus]

then why do people like MP freak out?

I don't know. People get things stuck in their head, dig in, and then get all stupid and irrational about it.

[Melbustus]

This isn't worth talking much about.  It's a foregone conclusion that the anti-spam measure called Max_block_size that was quickly added to the code without much though in the first place (other than: "yup, that'll be plenty big for a while") was destined to increase.

The newbies that disagree just don't know the history of that kludge.

Yup. That's why I keep posting this:

It can be phased in, like:

if (blocknumber > 115000)
    maxblocksize = largerlimit

It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.

When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade.

I honestly believe that after Satoshi disappeared he later remembered this change was left out, and thought to himself "Damn. I should have done it when I had the chance. It'll get done .. I'm sure ... I hope I don't regret this."

Heh, yeah, note that Satoshi's "way ahead" example was block # 115,000, which was about 6 months out at the time he wrote that. Now it's been 4 years and still hasn't happened.

[railzand]

satoshi left.

There are new powers that be, and powers that wanna be.

anyway...
I thought we were all agreed that inflation is bad...

[M28MmickT]

No you fork off!

[VectorChief]

satoshi left.

There are new powers that be, and powers that wanna be.

anyway...
I thought we were all agreed that inflation is bad...

You mean PoWers that BTC?

Good permission-less distribution of coins is not possible without some inflation, that's exactly what's happening. Only private and semi-private systems have all shares distributed to stakeholders in one go, money don't work that way, sorry.

[oda.krell]

News at 9: Gavin still right about block size and controlled hard forks, represents majority view of Bitcoin holders and users on the topic. Mircopu Pippescex still a drama queen, but now without sockpuppet representation on btctalk ^_^

[inBitweTrust]

anyway...
I thought we were all agreed that inflation is bad...

The proposed hardfork changes have nothing to do with inflation and inflation is actually intrinsic to bitcoins design with ~10% at the moment dropping to ~5% in 2016.

Bitcoin was designed to be disinflationary and technically is not deflationary(although market adoption can make it appear thus\).

[Lauda]

News at 9: Gavin still right about block size and controlled hard forks, represents majority view of Bitcoin holders and users on the topic. Mircopu Pippescex still a drama queen, but now without sockpuppet representation on btctalk ^_^

And the newbies siding with the wrong party, being against the fork.
The same story again just in a different situation, sigh.

[danielpbarron]

If you are in favor of this hard fork, you are in favor of the USG. Open up to the loving arms of big brother!

This is one reasonable claim I can agree with against a fork. The principle of not changing fundamentals. Because changing them once means you can change them again. And that opens the door to corruption. Is this your main argument against the fork?

I think Satoshi didn't consider the block size to be among fundamentals, but rather a temporary precaution against DDOS attacks. PoW's nature is such that it is hard to hide because of the physical presence, thus pretending that power players of today don't exist is meaningless. We need to make them accept the new rules and for that the volume cap needs to increase. We still have Litecoin if that route fails.

You are correct - I linked to what Satoshi said about the block size just above this and it was not something untouchable. (Not that we are bound by what he said, but anyone who argues that it is fundamental, never to be changed is just uninformed.)

Satoshi is gone. Gavin is not Satoshi. There was once a time when these things could have been changed; that time has passed. Or else you can expect to see this kind of scenario play out:

So what's next, if this somehow succeeds? Two years from now, Liberia uses bitcoin as national currency; suddenly the workers go on strike, ask for double salaries. Government asks Gavin to fork Bitcoin to give them an extra one-off five million BTC to pay the workers. Everyone agrees, right? Because: a) poor workers, they need it, and b) not agreeing would be being against expanded usage of Bitcoin. And for that matter, c) there's already precedent, the "poor users" who wanted to play but didn't want to pay transaction fees were given free stuff before.

[Soros Shorts]

then why do people like MP freak out?

I don't know. People get things stuck in their head, dig in, and then get all stupid and irrational about it.

There are not many people like MP. Many would recall that the precursor to his MPEx web site was hosted on the same domain that also hosted some kind of Eastern European dating/escort service. Would a rational person do that?

[delulo]

Miners will decide on that matter. Can anybody judge better than me towards which side minders will tend?