Fork off

[Flashman]

at the expense of full node operators.

Satoshi talks of nodes running in server farms and a lightweight client being the wallet for the average user. I don't see why the progress of bitcoin should be held hostage by the whiners who are too cheap to run a node on decent hardware, when it was never envisaged that anything less would be necessary in future.

[1715038546]

1715038546

[1715038546]

1715038546

[1715038546]

1715038546

[1715038546]

1715038546

[1715038546]

1715038546

[1715038546]

1715038546

[danielpbarron]

at the expense of full node operators.

Satoshi talks of nodes running in server farms and a lightweight client being the wallet for the average user. I don't see why the progress of bitcoin should be held hostage by the whiners who are too cheap to run a node on decent hardware, when it was never envisaged that anything less would be necessary in future.

If the "average user" isn't going to run a full node then he might as well not be using bitcoin. If he is willing to pass the security on to someone else, he might as well use an "off chain" method.

[solex]

On a second thought, its better not hardfork at all, keeping the block limit at 1mb will create a competitive market for transaction and secure Bitcoin place as a pure electronic gold system, on other hand increasing the size of the blocks will mostly certain ensure a humiliating defeat for Bitcoin against a more efficient blockchain for payments and regular transactions.

I think this is a myth at small scales. Bitcoin needs to reach a critical mass first, at least handling the volumes of Mastercard, before it can be an electronic equivalent of gold.

It is only its future potential which gives it today's appearance of electronic gold.  The reason is that the software is open source, Bitcoin is finite but cryptocurrency is infinite, and there are already hundreds of copies. Not all of Litecoin, Solarcoin, Auroracoin, etc, can be electronic gold. Most will remain junk forever.

[davout]

It is only its future potential which gives it today's appearance of electronic gold.

No.

[solex]

It is only its future potential which gives it today's appearance of electronic gold.

No.

Yes. Pretty much.

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!

If step 3 happens then Bitcoin looks more like Auroracoin than gold.

[cbeast]

Maybe miners are waiting for blocks to fill so they can pump IXC. If they cared about Bitcoin transactions they wouldn't waste resources merge mining

[phillipsjk]

Maybe miners are waiting for blocks to fill so they can pump IXC. If they cared about Bitcoin transactions they wouldn't waste resources merge mining

Apparently IXC is trying to follow the Bitcoin 0.8.x release. That will have the same block-size limit unless they changed it (I have not checked the source-code). I also believe that any coin with a faster emission curve than Bitcoin should be considered a possible scamcoin.

Merged mining costs 400-1500MB of RAM (namecoin is 495MB on my node) and ~2-20GB of disk (namecoin uses 2.9GiB on my node) to run another *coin instance. Other than that, it does not really take any more resources. Some mining hardware does not like frequent restarts; which happen more often with merged-mining. Note: My node goes down tomorrow due to lack of funds. (I am firmly in "little people" territory.)


I am torn whether we should simply ignore  Mircea Popescu (and his supporters), or try to continue to teach them the error in their ways on this issue.

I think I read somewhere that he is still on one of the 0.4.x clients. He distrusts a lot of the new features introduced since then. He believes that Bitcoin core should not have a wallet built-in at all. (0.9.x does let you disable the wallet).

I don't think he trusts the Obelisk effort either. Without a detailed spec, forks are likely if alternate Bitcoin node software is not bug-for-bug compatible. This was recently illustrated with recent versions of OpenSSL not being bug-for bug compatible (and causing a fork).

[danielpbarron]

I am torn whether we should simply ignore  Mircea Popescu (and his supporters), or try to continue to teach them the error in their ways on this issue.

I think I read somewhere that he is still on one of the 0.4.x clients. He distrusts a lot of the new features introduced since then. He believes that Bitcoin core should not have a wallet built-in at all. (0.9.x does let you disable the wallet).

I don't think he trusts the Obelisk effort either. Without a detailed spec, forks are likely if alternate Bitcoin node software is not bug-for-bug compatible. This was recently illustrated with recent versions of OpenSSL not being bug-for bug compatible (and causing a fork).

Who are you to make such grand decisions? Assbot says you're in the WoT, but I never see you in the channel. That's where this "conversation" is taking place; not on some derpy forum.

He's not just running old versions; he's having them re-written. You can read all about it at the real Bitcoin Foundation's webpage.

As for Obelisk -- never heard of it.

[oda.krell]

Also note the absence of any thing like, "all aspects of bitcoin may be compromised so that maximum adoption is achieved." Satoshi never framed this as "the fastest and bestest way to send money for all people no matter how stupid or poor they are." Your quoted texts prove my point rather than yours; we need "cryptographic proof instead of trust." When it comes to the money supply, I don't want to trust banks; I don't want to trust governments; and I certainly don't want to trust developers!

Maybe. I love the idea of algorithmic (in a formal sense) determination of almost anything. Money supply is definitely included in that.

But that wasn't the point. Other than the "Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks" message, what's the hard evidence Satoshi saw the network's main purpose as 'sound money' more than 'trustless payment system'? I still believe the fixed supply in the limit is more due to finding a solution for the economical bootstrapping problem than political/economical conviction, but my guess is as good as yours in that matter. There's simply not much evidence on this matter, to my knowledge.


That said, there is evidence what Satoshi thought about the max block size limit. Can't quote this often enough, it seems:

The threshold can easily be changed in the future.  We can decide to increase it when the time comes.  It's a good idea to keep it lower as a circuit breaker and increase it as needed.  If we hit the threshold now, it would almost certainly be some kind of flood and not actual use.  Keeping the threshold lower would help limit the amount of wasted disk space in that event.

Conclusion: Whatever one's arguments for or against raising the limit are, leave Satoshi out of it. From what we can gather, he thought it's a total non-issue, a matter of spam reduction.

Doesn't mean he's automatically right of course, but arguing against a relaxation of the limit by appeal to the creator's authority just doesn't fly given the evidence.

[bitcreditscc]

it's really a simple thing. DO WE NEED IT? Is the current limit affecting us or not? Have we reached a point where it is not enough?

[solex]

it's really a simple thing. DO WE NEED IT? Is the current limit affecting us or not? Have we reached a point where it is not enough?

The answer depends upon whether a system is centralized or decentralized. When Psy's Gangnam Style "broke" the download counter on YouTube the developers could easily upgrade it after the event, even though they saw it was going to happen. Centralized system, fixed in one place. Very easy!

With Bitcoin, the software is being run on many thousands of computers, owned by thousands of different people who have different opinions, speak different languages, have different priorities. If this change is delayed until it is obvious it is needed, then everyone has to upgrade, at once. Very messy!

Remember that a YouTube counter is nothing important, but if large numbers of YouTubers were waiting hours or days to see a video then the service becomes total crap. That is the equivalent to the dismal PR scenario being faced here.

[DeathAndTaxes]

it's really a simple thing. DO WE NEED IT? Is the current limit affecting us or not? Have we reached a point where it is not enough?

Today no but properly done a hard fork is a 6-9 month process.  Hell it almost took that long for P2SH.   We are roughly 35% to 40% of max capacity and txn volume over the last year (in a major bitcoin decline) still doubled.  Over a longer period of time it has grown more like 3x to 5x per year.  Waiting till 100% of blocks are 1MB and there is a 50,000 txn backlog is probably the wrong time to start discussing the issue.

[bitcreditscc]

it's really a simple thing. DO WE NEED IT? Is the current limit affecting us or not? Have we reached a point where it is not enough?

The answer depends upon whether a system is centralized or decentralized. When Psy's Gangnam Style "broke" the download counter on YouTube the developers could easily upgrade it after the event, even though they saw it was going to happen. Centralized system, fixed in one place. Very easy!

With Bitcoin, the software is being run on many thousands of computers, owned by thousands of different people who have different opinions, speak different languages, have different priorities. If this change is delayed until it is obvious it is needed, then everyone has to upgrade, at once. Very messy!

Remember that a YouTube counter is nothing important, but if large numbers of YouTubers were waiting hours or days to see a video then the service becomes total crap. That is the equivalent to the dismal PR scenario being faced here.

it's really a simple thing. DO WE NEED IT? Is the current limit affecting us or not? Have we reached a point where it is not enough?

Today no but properly done a hard fork is a 6-9 month process.  Hell it almost took that long for P2SH.   We are roughly 35% to 40% of max capacity and txn volume over the last year (in a major bitcoin decline) still doubled.  Over a longer period of time it has grown more like 3x to 5x per year.  Waiting till 100% of blocks are 1MB and there is a 50,000 txn backlog is probably the wrong time to start discussing the issue.

Thank you both for your answer. Based on that i think it is prudent to lay the ground work for expansion and explain it for what it is, evolution, not a hard fork. Hard fork just has a bad ring to it and is mostly used to explain fixing something broken with the system . I think this is a good step forward.

About space on HDD, the question becomes, do you prefer to have an extra 100GB of sauce or run your own node? The vast majority of users are now on lite clients so they are not affected, but if you can run a full node now then you already have the infrastructure to handle the expansion.

[DooMAD]

Bitcoin's ability to destroy socialism is not strengthened by the inclusion of every Tom, Dick, and Harry that has two cents to scrape together.

I wasn't aware that everyone had agreed on this being one of Bitcoin's aims.  While you're entitled to have your own agendas, conflating them with Bitcoin seems rather naive.  It's an open source protocol, people can do whatever they want with it.  There are people, myself included, who would like to see the inclusion of everyone in this technology and you can't do anything to change that.  If anything, your insistence to the contrary only reinforces my view that a fork would beneficial, since clearly there are different ideals at work in various corners of the community that aren't compatible.  There are those whose only concern is worshiping at the altar of money and turning a profit, whereas others see Bitcoin as a tool for social and political revolution.  Ultimately, we're all going to use it in the way our own personal ideals deem best, but try to understand that you can't force your view onto others. 

Who are you to make such grand decisions?

An individual with a mind of his own who is entitled to make his own decisions, much like everyone else.  Anyone who wants to propose a fork can do so, but similarly can't force anyone to go along with it.  Anyone can choose to ignore someone else's view on the matter and can encourage others to do the same if they so choose.  Again, personal freedom.  For what it's worth, if there is a fork, I'll happily go along with it.  Feel free to tell me why you don't agree, but you can't stop me.  Such is the beauty of decentralisation.

[danielpbarron]

Also note the absence of any thing like, "all aspects of bitcoin may be compromised so that maximum adoption is achieved." Satoshi never framed this as "the fastest and bestest way to send money for all people no matter how stupid or poor they are." Your quoted texts prove my point rather than yours; we need "cryptographic proof instead of trust." When it comes to the money supply, I don't want to trust banks; I don't want to trust governments; and I certainly don't want to trust developers!

Maybe. I love the idea of algorithmic (in a formal sense) determination of almost anything. Money supply is definitely included in that.

But that wasn't the point. Other than the "Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks" message, what's the hard evidence Satoshi saw the network's main purpose as 'sound money' more than 'trustless payment system'? I still believe the fixed supply in the limit is more due to finding a solution for the economical bootstrapping problem than political/economical conviction, but my guess is as good as yours in that matter. There's simply not much evidence on this matter, to my knowledge.


That said, there is evidence what Satoshi thought about the max block size limit. Can't quote this often enough, it seems:

The threshold can easily be changed in the future.  We can decide to increase it when the time comes.  It's a good idea to keep it lower as a circuit breaker and increase it as needed.  If we hit the threshold now, it would almost certainly be some kind of flood and not actual use.  Keeping the threshold lower would help limit the amount of wasted disk space in that event.

Conclusion: Whatever one's arguments for or against raising the limit are, leave Satoshi out of it. From what we can gather, the thought it's a non-issue. Doesn't mean he's automatically right of course, but arguing against a relaxation of the limit by appeal to the creator's authority just doesn't fly, given the evidence.

You know who uses "algorithms?" The Fed. Are you seriously suggesting that even the 21 million cap be raised? As for "trustless payment system," clearly this includes "sound money." Otherwise I need to trust an issuer. I already trust the mining process, but at least they are bound to a strict set of rules. Satoshi says "when the time comes," but you idiots want it ahead of time. Do you think it wouldn't be abuse if the threshold were reached today? Or if the limit was 20 MB? That wouldn't be abuse? How much does the USG pay you to slander bitcoin and satoshi?

it's really a simple thing. DO WE NEED IT? Is the current limit affecting us or not? Have we reached a point where it is not enough?

The answer depends upon whether a system is centralized or decentralized. When Psy's Gangnam Style "broke" the download counter on YouTube the developers could easily upgrade it after the event, even though they saw it was going to happen. Centralized system, fixed in one place. Very easy!

With Bitcoin, the software is being run on many thousands of computers, owned by thousands of different people who have different opinions, speak different languages, have different priorities. If this change is delayed until it is obvious it is needed, then everyone has to upgrade, at once. Very messy!

Remember that a YouTube counter is nothing important, but if large numbers of YouTubers were waiting hours or days to see a video then the service becomes total crap. That is the equivalent to the dismal PR scenario being faced here.

it's really a simple thing. DO WE NEED IT? Is the current limit affecting us or not? Have we reached a point where it is not enough?

Today no but properly done a hard fork is a 6-9 month process.  Hell it almost took that long for P2SH.   We are roughly 35% to 40% of max capacity and txn volume over the last year (in a major bitcoin decline) still doubled.  Over a longer period of time it has grown more like 3x to 5x per year.  Waiting till 100% of blocks are 1MB and there is a 50,000 txn backlog is probably the wrong time to start discussing the issue.

Thank you both for your answer. Based on that i think it is prudent to lay the ground work for expansion and explain it for what it is, evolution, not a hard fork. Hard fork just has a bad ring to it and is mostly used to explain fixing something broken with the system . I think this is a good step forward.

About space on HDD, the question becomes, do you prefer to have an extra 100GB of sauce or run your own node? The vast majority of users are now on lite clients so they are not affected, but if you can run a full node now then you already have the infrastructure to handle the expansion.

It's not just hard drive space; it's processing power and bandwidth. It's ironic that opponents of the hard-fork are framed as elitist when the proposed changes would make running a full node the kind of thing only wealthy people can afford.

Bitcoin's ability to destroy socialism is not strengthened by the inclusion of every Tom, Dick, and Harry that has two cents to scrape together.

I wasn't aware that everyone had agreed on this being one of Bitcoin's aims.  While you're entitled to have your own agendas, conflating them with Bitcoin seems rather naive.  It's an open source protocol, people can do whatever they want with it.  There are people, myself included, who would like to see the inclusion of everyone in this technology and you can't do anything to change that.  If anything, your insistence to the contrary only reinforces my view that a fork would beneficial, since clearly there are different ideals at work in various corners of the community that aren't compatible.  There are those whose only concern is worshiping at the altar of money and turning a profit, whereas others see Bitcoin as a tool for social and political revolution.  Ultimately, we're all going to use it in the way our own personal ideals deem best, but try to understand that you can't force your view onto others. 

Who are you to make such grand decisions?

An individual with a mind of his own who is entitled to make his own decisions, much like everyone else.  Anyone who wants to propose a fork can do so, but similarly can't force anyone to go along with it.  Anyone can choose to ignore someone else's view on the matter and can encourage others to do the same if they so choose.  Again, personal freedom.  For what it's worth, if there is a fork, I'll happily go along with it.  Feel free to tell me why you don't agree, but you can't stop me.  Such is the beauty of decentralisation.

Are you making the argument that bitcoin will be used to further socialism? You don't think that socialism is made impossible by bitcoin? As for "why I don't agree," it's a warning to you! Gavincoin will not succeed (if the hard-fork even happens). If you don't have the private keys to your funds, you won't be able to split them into real-bitcoin and gavincoin. Exchange operators and service providers will be able to split your funds, sell the bitcoin (if they are stupid), and keep the gavincoin. When the dust settles (gavincoin price approaches zero), any exchanges that made the switch and sold the bitcoin, are now insolvent. The hard-fork scam has the potential to cause a lot of pain to a lot of unsuspecting gavinbots.

[neurotypical]

Imo your socialist or anarchocapitalism dreams are irrelevant to the matter here, which is the fact that we'll eventually need to up the block transactions higher than current value and afaik this requires a fork, so why wait, the more people that is inside bitcoin while the fork happens the more terrible it will be.

[davout]

It's not just hard drive space; it's processing power and bandwidth. It's ironic that opponents of the hard-fork are framed as elitist when the proposed changes would make running a full node the kind of thing only wealthy people can afford.

This. A thousand times.

[forevernoob]

Will the maximum block size be scalable without hard forking if they decide to fork Bitcoin?
If not, won't this "issue" pop up again when transactions fill up the 20MB block size limit?

[inBitweTrust]

Will the maximum block size be scalable without hard forking if they decide to fork Bitcoin?
If not, won't this "issue" pop up again when transactions fill up the 20MB block size limit?

Yes, but this would be a fantastic problem to have if we were worried about exceeding ~140 tps.

[DooMAD]

Bitcoin's ability to destroy socialism is not strengthened by the inclusion of every Tom, Dick, and Harry that has two cents to scrape together.

I wasn't aware that everyone had agreed on this being one of Bitcoin's aims.  While you're entitled to have your own agendas, conflating them with Bitcoin seems rather naive.  It's an open source protocol, people can do whatever they want with it.  There are people, myself included, who would like to see the inclusion of everyone in this technology and you can't do anything to change that.  If anything, your insistence to the contrary only reinforces my view that a fork would beneficial, since clearly there are different ideals at work in various corners of the community that aren't compatible.  There are those whose only concern is worshiping at the altar of money and turning a profit, whereas others see Bitcoin as a tool for social and political revolution.  Ultimately, we're all going to use it in the way our own personal ideals deem best, but try to understand that you can't force your view onto others. 

Who are you to make such grand decisions?

An individual with a mind of his own who is entitled to make his own decisions, much like everyone else.  Anyone who wants to propose a fork can do so, but similarly can't force anyone to go along with it.  Anyone can choose to ignore someone else's view on the matter and can encourage others to do the same if they so choose.  Again, personal freedom.  For what it's worth, if there is a fork, I'll happily go along with it.  Feel free to tell me why you don't agree, but you can't stop me.  Such is the beauty of decentralisation.

Are you making the argument that bitcoin will be used to further socialism? You don't think that socialism is made impossible by bitcoin? As for "why I don't agree," it's a warning to you! Gavincoin will not succeed (if the hard-fork even happens). If you don't have the private keys to your funds, you won't be able to split them into real-bitcoin and gavincoin. Exchange operators and service providers will be able to split your funds, sell the bitcoin (if they are stupid), and keep the gavincoin. When the dust settles (gavincoin price approaches zero), any exchanges that made the switch and sold the bitcoin, are now insolvent. The hard-fork scam has the potential to cause a lot of pain to a lot of unsuspecting gavinbots.

I'm making the argument that people will try to use Bitcoin for whatever purpose they choose because it's a neutral protocol.  It's people that have agendas and vested interests and I'm starting to wonder if you and Mircea Popescu have one of your own, since you're the ones making the most noise about this.  Your statement that the new fork won't succeed is nothing but speculation, your guess is only worth as much as anyone else's.  No one can claim with any certainty that they know what's going to happen.  So again I ask why you're so afraid of the fork and allowing the market to decide based on the merit of each chain's blocksize?  All I'm seeing are a lot of threats, scaremongering and baseless speculations.  Exchanges can do whatever they want with the coins they hold regardless of whether or not there's a fork, so please tell me why I shouldn't dismiss that particular doomsday scenario as the FUD it sounds like.  Use of the phrase "gavinbots" seems a little sanctimonious when it appears you can only regurgitate Mircea's wild accusations about Gavin's intent.  Can we at least try to keep the discussion to genuine pros and cons?