Bitcoin 20MB Fork

[traincarswreck]

As long as we don't have to explain what comes first the chicken or the egg we can do this (ie we must relevate bohms "implicate" order). The "cubit" was obviously then born both out of the iterations of pyramid building and also the power of it as a consensus-vised/measurement tool, created them.  No doubt and not a surprise we find them coveted and preserved, yet the power of their numbers and systems evolved and moved on (if we follow szabo's blog all the way up to the measurement devices that became bitcoin).

Then if we follow all this and the relation of block chains and pyramids to the concepts of what is ideal money and how does it arise and especially in relation to the nature and causes of TWON, we should in fact expect pyramids of different stages to have been erected separately across different continents (and possibly and likely taken down to build new bigger pyramids that supported larger civilizations). We have already forgotten our ancient civilizations so much that we don't even realize without the pyramids we would necessarily be in the "stone ages" still or at least some form of "flat planet" beliefs systems (Although it won't immediately seem so relevant).  And without fully describing the purpose of the pyramids and their truest nature we should thank them (or the lucky heavens), that they were so aligned with constellations that they might not at all be aligned with any more, that shows us some form of definitive period as well as some from of planetary actions).

Can we deny this?

Further then we must understand the importance of NSzabo's Kula ring conjecture http://szabo.best.vwh.net/kula.html, because it is but a piece of the picture, since it necessitates another solution in which there is instead a nation in the middle of for example four nations that circle it, BUT this time possibly all on land (or some but possibly one in the middle)!  We aren't finished formalizing Adam smith then http://unenumerated.blogspot.ca/2014/10/transportation-divergence-and.html#links Because now we must understand what it is between "nations" or divisions of LAND among tribes that sometimes arises the greatest wealth in the greatest nations.  And on a completely different spectrum it was only computers that arose our ability to solve certain problems such as the byzantine or the 4 colors problem: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_color_theorem which we have come to understand especially through games the important of such solutions on our social consciousnesses.

The significance being completely upside down and difficult to describe (in a form we might immediately identify), but we have created the scenario, the purpose, the only possibility that could arise the great nash equilibrium which necessitates the arising of a more ideal money, where money is the function, form, or symptom of the bedrock mechanism of that society (ie pyramid, gold, block chain).  We shouldn't then be fooled by those that have not properly understood that TWON is in fact an "inquiry" and not so much a thesis, and that Adam Smith would not at all hate bitcoin http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/12/adam-smith-hates-bitcoin/?_r=0

But rather very likely have understood that one of the necessary pillars of a civilization is a strategic port, which no doubt arises from great water systems built of (and from) naturally great water systems. This allows for the type of foreign commerce and conquest that would eventually topple and wipe from the earth all nations and tribes (histories) up until some key points in history which include some simultaneous form of creating a "record" (blockchain) that stands the entire test of time that is effective up until the point in which we cover the globe and hit a secure equilibrium in relation to surprise conquest through the seas.

ONCE we hit that point of equilibrium, then we can go back and ask ourselves, from where and whence did we come? And now we understand what it means not to know how or why the pyramids were created, and what egypts' relation might be to the sea people (that apparently and allegedly eventually conquered them), and what the Indus valleys relation might have been to its time (and to egypt), and why the "smarter contract" system of the indus is yet to be deciphered. This should begin to spell out a perfect relation of the cubit, to the bit, to the blockchain, and further on to the Q-bit.  Why should these things not be related?

And so what is now new then?  It is obvious we have conquered the world and achieved a great equilibrium of the 4 colors problem, and this shows up in the most evolved forms of "currencies" (USD CNY Euro etc.) that are trying to represent the four or five "Nations" that created the coincidences that created a higher form of "Money". This money is more ideal but not ideal, as there is another level if there can arise a larger (more universal) consensus mechanism (bitcoin) built on another psychologically finite "building" rate.

And so we are both discussing not only the creation of the specific measurement unit that will ultimately arise from this different dimension and slightly different paradigm of both a new pyramid consensus mechanism that is gold, but also we are now putting on top the very cap of it.  Once we have this new standard, we are then able to, for the first time in history (ha) begin to decentralize our society, such as take the burden from the US of guarding both gold and the dollar and for example Arabia and Oil.

It seems then that Gavin humbly presents a very important concept and a significant event, which suggests probably, that he is in fact the architect, which is strange although he is from Princeton uni. It means we should not be fooled that bitcoin should be anything other than a clumsy pyramid, immovable, or not very movable like gold in relation to "money", because bitcoins main purpose and its highest value is to bring stability to the major currencies in this world nearly over night, upon making and accepting this consensus of this condition (which will then birth the new faster fertile moneys Adam smith refers to in the above link).

It will bring the great equilibrium, and likely end war between nations, as we have now clearly shown, that war is the product of centralization (or the transfer of it (power)) and peace comes from a global Nash equilibrium of 4-5 major nations of significant interests and not before it. This is the outline, I have a whole paper to write.

Cliffs: Aliens built pyramids too, and their block sizes matched their cubit in inches and therefore so should ours.


Also bohm: http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html#jCp

[1714787461]

1714787461

[1714787461]

1714787461

[1714787461]

1714787461

[NewLiberty]

Bitcoin has a BIG potential but we limit it, a max 20MB block size is not a drama. Come on guys, the actual block size (1 Mb) is not for ever. As  "technology" the "changes" are obligated.

Swapping one arbitrary number for another is how software is developed.  Protocol development is another thing entirely.

It is not enough to change it.  Protocols demand to know: "Why?",  "Under what conditions will it next change?", "What triggers a change?".  "How will we measure for that?",  "What risks are there for measuring it in that way?",  "How are those risks managed?", etc...

If for our parameters, we are picking subjectively selected arbitrary numbers (guesses) based on even the best available predictions of the future, we know that we will be wrong eventually.  What then?  (That's how we got here today)

People that design software, say: "So what?  The installer will just download the latest patch and we go on."  
People that design protocols, say: "We have work to do."

The alternative is that a central committee appoints itself as the arbiter of block size limits and everyone salutes it.  This is not a likely result for Bitcoin, which is possibly one of its biggest distinguishing features from all the other choices.

[justusranvier]

Why the blocksize limit keeps Bitcoin free and decentralized : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZp7UGgBR0I

That video is a IQ test.

It starts out with a lie ("The blocksize limit is what ensures everyone can participate in the Bitcoin network") and the rest is just there to see how many contradictions a gullible audience can be convinced to accept.

[tvbcof]

Why the blocksize limit keeps Bitcoin free and decentralized : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZp7UGgBR0I

That video is a IQ test.

It starts out with a lie ("The blocksize limit is what ensures everyone can participate in the Bitcoin network")

Back in the day it was not unheard of for people to run full peer node (bitcoind or BitcoinQT.)  In fact it was probably more common than not.  I don't recall if MultiBit and other SPV stuff was out or not.  Electrum was around as another option.

and the rest is just there to see how many contradictions a gullible audience can be convinced to accept.

For instance?

(Full Disclosure:  I was one of the larger of the financial contributors to get this thing made.  Peter Todd was the driving force behind it.  Since I've gotten involved with Bitcoin I've seen bloat as being the Achilles' heel based on what influences it will have on the evolution of the ecosystem, and I've put my money where my mouth is.  I posited back in 2011 that the most effective way for TPTB to kill Bitcoin would be to embrace it and make it grow it's way into a situation where subversion was possible.)

[justusranvier]

For instance?

(Full Disclosure:  I was one of the larger of the financial contributors to get this thing made.  Peter Todd was the driving force behind it.  Since I've gotten involved with Bitcoin I've seen bloat as being the Achilles' heel based on what influences it will have on the evolution of the ecosystem, and I've put my money where my mouth is.  I posited back in 2011 that the most effective way for TPTB to kill Bitcoin would be to embrace it and make it grow it's way into a situation where subversion was possible.)

Why don't we start with the fact that the video defined "participate" (as, in "everyone can participate in the Bitcoin network") as meaning that everyone can donate resources to operate a Bitocin node, but they'll only actually be allowed to use Bitcoin two or perhaps three times in their life.

[CoinCidental]

I posited back in 2011 that the most effective way for TPTB to kill Bitcoin would be to embrace it and make it grow it's way into a situation where subversion was possible.)

Otherwise known as Embrace, extend and extinguish

Embrace: Development of software substantially compatible with a competing product, or implementing a public standard.
Extend: Addition and promotion of features not supported by the competing product or part of the standard, creating interoperability problems for customers who try to use the 'simple' standard.
Extinguish: When extensions become a de facto standard because of their dominant market share, they marginalize competitors that do not or cannot support the new extensions.

With BTC this will happen like the fall of an axe: relentless and abruptly, a mortal blow to a before perfectly fine and united network.

fuck off back to altcoin land,you only want to pimp your monero horseshit by making it somehow relevant once btc blocks are overloaded

[tvbcof]

For instance?

(Full Disclosure:  I was one of the larger of the financial contributors to get this thing made.  Peter Todd was the driving force behind it.  Since I've gotten involved with Bitcoin I've seen bloat as being the Achilles' heel based on what influences it will have on the evolution of the ecosystem, and I've put my money where my mouth is.  I posited back in 2011 that the most effective way for TPTB to kill Bitcoin would be to embrace it and make it grow it's way into a situation where subversion was possible.)

Why don't we start with the fact that the video defined "participate" (as, in "everyone can participate in the Bitcoin network") as meaning that everyone can donate resources to operate a Bitocin node, but they'll only actually be allowed to use Bitcoin two or perhaps three times in their life.

I've long (many years) anticipated subordinate chains which require users to support the backing chain as a function of supporting (and hopefully simply using in lots of cases) the subordinate chain itself.  Obviously the backing chain is key to the survival of the subordinate chains and thus all subordinates will be supporting a single backing chain.

What this means is that it makes perfect sense for everyone who is geared to support any chain at all to support native Bitcoin whether they ever use it directly or not.  Using it indirectly is nearly as important as using it directly anyway.

This is a big reason why it is important (to me at least) that the actual value core remain lite and tight.  The easier it is to support the more people will be inclined to do so.

[Buffer Overflow]

What's the tps and block size cap of Monero?

[NxtChg]

"Distributed" would imply that you think anyone's going to stick around to use MPcoin.  I'd be genuinely surprised if more than 100 people follow your chain once the fork happens.  And after that it will swiftly drop to about 10 deluded MP fanboys when none of the merchants accept it for anything, because everyone else wants a coin the masses can actually use.  You're opting for a limited, isolationist, elitist chain, and that's what you're going to get.  Everyone else will be long gone.  Hell, I bet even Litecoin/Peercoin/Namecoin/Doge will have more node support and be more distributed than MPcoin. 

Exactly. That's why they are in a panic mode, spreading FUD and threats to try and prevent the fork.

They are smart enough to realize that it's not actually "Gavincoin" vs "MPcoin", that battle is lost before it's even started.

[donschoe]

while we are talking alts - does a faster blocktime result in a higher tps?

would it be 28 tps for litecoin for example?

[cbeast]

Lets implement a maximum block size that can adjust to what is needed rather than just guessing at what might be needed?  Lets build a protocol for the next 100 years, not the next 100 weeks?  I think we can do better, and we currently have the time to do so.  

The frustration with arguing with many of you is that you come at this issue as though it were an economic problem.  It's not an economic problem.  Economically, the block size should not be artificially limited.
...

Neither Gavin nor you nor any of the hard-fork crowd seem anxious to answer this.

"We are targeting the top {n}% of world population by gross income being able to perform {n} native Bitcoin transactions per year and pay {x}% of their transaction values to miners as fees.  Here is our roadmap."

It seems unrealistic to complain about a lack of decent analysis without such a basic goal being stated.

It's interesting you use "roadmap" as your analogy. You are thinking in two dimensions. Bitcoin isn't about money management. Bitcoin will open transit systems (to extend your analogy) never thought possible. Bitcoin doesn't need to replace coinage because I imagine material scientists will design very difficult to counterfeit physical bills and tokens. Bitcoin doesn't need to replace lending or credit, because trust is how people help each other. Instead it will create trustless contracts between normally unreliable and even hostile producers and consumers. It will be a tool for economic expansion, not bean counting. So to answer your fast-food managerial level question about who gets paid: it isn't how big the block reward or fees are, it's how much you save and allow to deflate that will pay the biggest dividends.

You are making things far more complex than they need to be.  I think you are trying to elevate the solution so some sort of a metaphysical level and this is subconsciously because you don't want to consider the engineering problems.

At the end of the day, when the parts of the ecosystem are broken down into their constituent components (and sub-components) we are looking at things that are not all that complex by the standards of other engineering problems we humans have solved.  It is literally 'not rocket science'.  It's not trivial either of course, but for better or worse, what Satoshi came up with was actually rather primitive in some ways.

An engineer who cannot or will not define and end-goal to some level of specificity is basically planning to fail.  That is exactly what Gavin is doing whether by accident or design.

Anyway, it's a simple fill-in-the-blank type question that I asked.  Wanna have a go at it?  Nobody else seems to.

That's not what I mean at all. Bitcoin will create entirely new industries that don't currently exist like the internet has only begun to do. There will be plenty of incentives for operating nodes and resourceful ways to expand Bitcoin's pipelines. It's not just about Moore's Law, it's about a New Industrial Revolution, not some armchair philosophy. Your x-y financial charts will require a z-axis with Bitcoin.

[solex]

while we are talking alts - does a faster blocktime result in a higher tps?

would it be 28 tps for litecoin for example?

Correct, assuming that Lee did not change the MAX_BLOCK_SIZE constant for LTC.
Note that the 7 tps was an early estimate, whereas 2.7 tps is being seen on existing ~1MB Bitcoin blocks, which means ~11 tps for Litecoin, assuming also that they will have larger tx from P2SH and some 2.0 data storage.

The fact that LTC has a 4x higher tps than BTC should be ringing alarm bells for the "keep-1MB" people (those who actually like Bitcoin, not the pro-alt-coin kill-bitcoin shills).

[traincarswreck]

That's not what I mean at all. Bitcoin will create entirely new industries that don't currently exist like the internet has only begun to do. There will be plenty of incentives for operating nodes and resourceful ways to expand Bitcoin's pipelines. It's not just about Moore's Law, it's about a New Industrial Revolution, not some armchair philosophy. Your x-y financial charts will require a z-axis with Bitcoin.

This is an important clip from one of Szabo recent blogs, the significance is that it bridges all our current economic knowledge in the physical world with the software world in a very tight package:

Metcalfe's Law states that a value of a network is proportional to the square of the number of its nodes.  In an area where good soils, mines, and forests are randomly distributed, the number of nodes valuable to an industrial economy is proportional to the area encompassed.  The number of such nodes that can be economically accessed is an inverse square of the cost per mile of transportation.  Combine this  with Metcalfe's Law and we reach a dramatic but solid mathematical conclusion: the potential value of a land transportation network is the inverse fourth power of the cost of that transportation. A reduction in transportation costs in a trade network by a factor of two increases the potential value of that network by a factor of sixteen. While a power of exactly 4.0 will usually be too high, due to redundancies, this does show how the cost of transportation can have a radical nonlinear impact on the value of the trade networks it enables.  This formalizes Adam Smith's observations: the division of labor (and thus value of an economy) increases with the extent of the market, and the extent of the market is heavily influenced by transportation costs (as he extensively discussed in his Wealth of Nations).

Now speaking of transportation costs and especially in relation to software Adam Smith makes some interesting observations that aren't necessary against bitcoin DEPENDING on the parameters set for it:

The gold and silver money which circulates in any country, and by means of which, the produce of its land and labour is annually circulated and distributed to the proper consumers, is, in the same manner as the ready money of the dealer, all dead stock. It is a very valuable part of the capital of the country, which produces nothing to the country. The judicious operations of banking, by substituting paper in the room of a great part of this gold and silver, enable the country to convert a great part of this dead stock into active and productive stock; into stock which produces something to the country. The gold and silver money which circulates in any country may very properly be compared to a highway, which, while it circulates and carries to market all the grass and corn of the country, produces itself not a single pile of either. The judicious operations of banking, by providing, if I may be allowed so violent a metaphor, a sort of waggon-way through the air, enable the country to convert, as it were, a great part of its highways into good pastures, and corn fields, and thereby to increase, very considerably, the annual produce of its land and labour.

Smith seemingly isn't disliking gold and silver but rather makes observations on them and their relation to types of money that might fly freer than the physical metals (which act like highways?). And also when thinking about optimizing currencies and especially in relation to market equilibrium and voting etc, it might be helpful to consult Dr. Nash and the lectures on "Ideal Money":

Illustrating the principle of these optional choices, the people of Sweden recently had the opportunity of voting in a referendum on whether or not Sweden should join the eruoc-currency bloc and replace the kronor by the euro and thus use the same currency as Finland.  The people voted against that, for various reasons.  But it cannot be irrelevant whether or not the future quality of a currency is really assured or whether instead that it depends on the shifting sands of political decisions or the possibly arbitrary actions of a bureaucracy of officials.

[redsn0w]

Bitcoin has a BIG potential but we limit it, a max 20MB block size is not a drama. Come on guys, the actual block size (1 Mb) is not for ever. As  "technology" the "changes" are obligated.

Swapping one arbitrary number for another is how software is developed.  Protocol development is another thing entirely.

It is not enough to change it.  Protocols demand to know: "Why?",  "Under what conditions will it next change?", "What triggers a change?".  "How will we measure for that?",  "What risks are there for measuring it in that way?",  "How are those risks managed?", etc...

If for our parameters, we are picking subjectively selected arbitrary numbers (guesses) based on even the best available predictions of the future, we know that we will be wrong eventually.  What then?  (That's how we got here today)

People that design software, say: "So what?  The installer will just download the latest patch and we go on."  
People that design protocols, say: "We have work to do."

The alternative is that a central committee appoints itself as the arbiter of block size limits and everyone salutes it.  This is not a likely result for Bitcoin, which is possibly one of its biggest distinguishing features from all the other choices.

So at the end it is not a simple "choice", okay now I'm very confused.

[tarmi]

while we are talking alts - does a faster blocktime result in a higher tps?

would it be 28 tps for litecoin for example?

Correct, assuming that Lee did not change the MAX_BLOCK_SIZE constant for LTC.
Note that the 7 tps was an early estimate, whereas 2.7 tps is being seen on existing ~1MB Bitcoin blocks, which means ~11 tps for Litecoin, assuming also that they will have larger tx from P2SH and some 2.0 data storage.

The fact that LTC has a 4x higher tps than BTC should be ringing alarm bells for the "keep-1MB" people (those who actually like Bitcoin, not the pro-alt-coin kill-bitcoin shills).

if so, care to elaborate why ltc is only 1/100th of bitcoin price even if it has a 4x higher tps number?

[davout]

So at the end it is not a simple "choice", okay now I'm very confused.

That's just because you don't recognize word salad when you see some.

[redsn0w]

So at the end it is not a simple "choice", okay now I'm very confused.

That's just because you don't recognize word salad when you see some.

davout , Can I ask you what is your opinion about this "hard-fork" ? Thanks for the attention.

[davout]

davout , Can I ask you what is your opinion about this "hard-fork" ? Thanks for the attention.

Not needed right now. While I'm not against - in principle - to the limit being bumped by sane people when, and if ever, *actually necessary*, I vigorously oppose Gavin's proposal of exponential block-size growth. It's either pure madness, or a straight attempt at sterilizing bitcoin by indirectly putting it into reach of governments through increased centralization.

[cbeast]

If Bitcoin is allowed to become universally accepted, there is nothing to stop network professionals from building a new internet based on Bitcoin. Bitpay is researching this as are others, I am sure. So while 20MB willl get things moving again, exponential growth is very likely by simply rebuilding what needs to be done anyway.

[hdbuck]

davout , Can I ask you what is your opinion about this "hard-fork" ? Thanks for the attention.

Not needed right now. While I'm not against - in principle - to the limit being bumped by sane people when, and if ever, *actually necessary*, I vigorously oppose Gavin's proposal of exponential block-size growth. It's either pure madness, or a straight attempt at sterilizing bitcoin by indirectly putting it into reach of governments through increased centralization.

+1

may i ask if it has been discussed by the whole paymium team?