Bitcoin 20MB Fork

[traincarswreck]

It's appreciated, and called for, to have these numbers, and interesting to have in relation to what might be our software version of "past iterations" data.  But if we follow even a small fraction of the connections I present, NOBODY is able to predict beyond even the next few years, let alone decades.  And so we MUST necessarily make a best guess, and that best guess must then be what the architect suggests.

[RoadStress]

No I had to get out, a couple large points, everyone agrees with you, but what we need to understand, is I am the most well read on these related subjects, and their connections are incredibly difficult to present. However, I would rather appreciate more dialog and discussion from others....

They are NOT related subject. You are clearly NOT aware of this: http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/33405247/ which again I fully support. Read it and if afterwards you only see the Bitcoin network as Ideal Money then you are clearly on a wrong path. Enjoy!

[traincarswreck]

They are NOT related subject. You are clearly NOT aware of this: http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/33405247/ which again I fully support. Read it and if afterwards you only see the Bitcoin network as Ideal Money then you are clearly on a wrong path. Enjoy!

Ideal Money means money that is pegged to a perfect standard.  I suspect me and you are in total agreement, or perhaps not, but what seems clear to me is we are about to make the concnesus that bitcoin should be a moderately tansactable asset, and that all of the high frequency transactions will be "bitcoin 2.0", such as the "universal poker coin" that is clearly going to come about and is so much needed for the igaming industry. They will be transactions that are on a "higher protocol" (or wherever you describe it) that Adam Smith refers to the creation of "live stock" in which gold cannot be, but gold serves as the highway for.

(and btw, I am the only one here so well read on the lecture topic Ideal Money, and I do suggest the lecture talks about this very dialogue and decision we face at this very moment)

[davout]

With traincarswreck & LiteCoinGuy on ignore, it's much more readable.

I said a few pages ago that everyone should be able to use the blockchain

Yeah, and that's retarded.

[RoadStress]

They are NOT related subject. You are clearly NOT aware of this: http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/33405247/ which again I fully support. Read it and if afterwards you only see the Bitcoin network as Ideal Money then you are clearly on a wrong path. Enjoy!

Ideal Money means money that is pegged to a perfect standard.  I suspect me and you are in total agreement, or perhaps not, but what seems clear to me is we are about to make the concnesus that bitcoin should be a moderately tansactable asset, and that all of the high frequency transactions will be "bitcoin 2.0", such as the "universal poker coin" that is clearly going to come about and is so much needed for the igaming industry. They will be transactions that are on a "higher protocol" (or wherever you describe it) that Adam Smith refers to the creation of "live stock" in which gold cannot be, but gold serves as the highway for.

(and btw, I am the only one here so well read on the lecture topic Ideal Money, and I do suggest the lecture talks about this very dialogue and decision we face at this very moment)

Too bad that you spent so much time with Ideal Money but you haven't read or haven't understood what's JGarzik is saying. Let me highlight the important part for you:

Bitcoin is a settlement system, by design.

Of course that you can disagree, but it doesn't mean it transforms to reality only because you want it so.

I said a few pages ago that everyone should be able to use the blockchain

Yeah, and that's retarded.

And having a blockchain that is available only to the highest bidders isn't retarded?

I was trying to agree on the fact that we need bigger block limits. Do you agree with what JGarzik posted on the Mailing List? If yes then we both agree that we need a bigger block limit which is fine with me. It's the only thing that I'm advocating for.

[davout]

It's the only thing that I'm advocating for.

Well then I suggest advocating it when the time is right.

[traincarswreck]

I was trying to agree on the fact that we need bigger block limits. Do you agree with what JGarzik posted on the Mailing List? If yes then we both agree that we need a bigger block limit which is fine with me. It's the only thing that I'm advocating for.

Yes I believe I have shown in extensive detail that the thesis of ideal money is that bitcoin is to be more like gold than a coffee payment system.  But that is not at all to say we don't need a larger limit.  It is clear we do.  It seems clear all the logical people, that are not functioning on assumptions, understand all of this, and that a proper limit cannot be attained and rather best guess must be what we shoot for (ie gavins' testing and best guess).

Ideal Money, and Ideal Poker both suggest exactly the below, and I am claiming so does exactly Adam Smith in the Inquiry and Causes of TWON:

Bitcoin payments are like IP packets -- one way, irreversible.  For
larger value transfers this attaches attendent risk of loss -- as
we've seen in the field time & again.  The world's citizens en masse
will not speak to each other with bitcoin (IP packets), but rather
with multiple layers (HTTP/TCP/IP) that enable safe and secure value
transfer or added features such as instant transactions.

It is foolish to think the entire world will connect directly to the
P2P block network and broadcast all the morning coffees to all the
miners.  That's not how the system works.  It is a settlement layer.
We _must_ build decentralized layered solutions on top of bitcoin,
rather than stuffing everything into bitcoin itself.

[RoadStress]

It's the only thing that I'm advocating for.

Well then I suggest advocating it when the time is right.

Ignoring the fact that you haven't replied to my question please tell me why isn't the right time now?

Yes I believe I have shown in extensive detail that the thesis of ideal money is that bitcoin is to be more like gold than a coffee payment system.

Nobody is reading your long and out of scope posts This is not a discussion about bitcoin being this or that. It's a discussion if we need a bigger block size limit or not. Everything else should revolve around this. The coffee payment system was just an argument to show that we need a bigger block size. We can trash it and we can agree that the blobkchain shouldn't be used to pay for coffee if that's what you want, but the issue remains. We still need a bigger block size limit no matter what! How do you think the upper layers would work? Do you really think that the upper layers will be fine with a 1MB limit?

[davout]

Ignoring the fact that you haven't replied to my question please tell me why isn't the right time now?

Because there is currently no problem.

[traincarswreck]

Nobody is reading your long and out of scope posts

They are being read in the future as I type  You see I have the only knowledge of the lecture series, and so I am the only one able to relate it (I claim this looking forward to being proved wrong!).  I post INCREDIBLY relevant but admittedly incredibly dense material.  But we should not treat it like religion and numerology, it is very simple, when one has a clear picture of the logic and science, without the myth of "satoshi", then one can make clear extrapolations about truth.

A few years ago Nash made many many predictions that are perfectly observable at this very time. He can't be in this discussion tho, neither could Szabo Gavin etc. And I wonder if you and others realize this and understand why?

If it becomes a matter of strong and definite prefer-ences that the money used should have definite character-istics of quality then, in principle, the people can demand that. For example formerly there was the drachma and now there is, in Greece, the euro instead of that. And the people seem to be pleased with the change.

This is not a discussion about bitcoin being this or that. It's a discussion if we need a bigger block size limit or not. Everything else should revolve around this. The coffee payment system was just an argument to show that we need a bigger block size. We can trash it and we can agree that the blobkchain shouldn't be used to pay for coffee if that's what you want, but the issue remains. We still need a bigger block size limit no matter what! How do you think the upper layers would work? Do you really think that the upper layers will be fine with a 1MB limit?

Yes it must be raised, but I am not sure you understand the difference between raising it to a larger but still small size that does not accommodate coffee purchases?  We are clearly going to attempt to raise it, but others may not like the proposed (or concensivized) size, because it will still necessarily act like a gold rather than a coffee payment system.

That sacrifice, that we will increase it, but still with a purposeful limit, to me, is exactly proposed here:

But the famous classical "Gresham’s Law" also reveals the intrinsic difficulty. Thus "good money" will not naturally supplant and replace "bad money" by a simple Darwinian superiority of competitive species. Rather than that, it must be that the good things are established by the voluntary choice of human agencies. And these resp-onsible agencies, being naturally of the domain of polit-ically derived authorities, would need to make appropriate efforts to achieve such a goal and to pay the costs that are entailed before their societies can benefit. And the benefits would come from the improvement in the quality of this public utility (money) which serves to facilitate the game-theoretic function of "the transfer of utility".
    An example of an efficiently working global reform (at least in relation to electronic manufactures) is the metric system, with its central Bureau located near Paris. And this is an example of a system of yardsticks where inflation is currently NOT in fashion!

^^^bolded the conclusion in case we understand his joke this time!

[RoadStress]

Ignoring the fact that you haven't replied to my question please tell me why isn't the right time now?

Because there is currently no problem.

So we (network consensus) should wait until we have full 1MB blocks until we start considering increasing the block size? Or when do you consider it's the best time to approach this issue?

[traincarswreck]

Or when do you consider it's the best time to approach this issue?

It must (necessarily) be AFTER a time of bootstrap adoption, after the mining pools hit (nash) equilibrium, after the exchanges hit equilibrium.  Hopefully when enough "coins" are in the hands of enough peoples that "vote" in the interest of the common good (and not the centralized power holders).

Yet it must be BEFORE the time when adoption gets so big that an INTELLIGENT consensus cannot be made.

[Buffer Overflow]

Ignoring the fact that you haven't replied to my question please tell me why isn't the right time now?

Because there is currently no problem.

Well there clearly is a problem or else this thread wouldn't exist.

[davout]

So we (network consensus) should wait until we have full 1MB blocks until we start considering increasing the block size?

Yes. If that ever proves problematic that is.

Well there clearly is a problem or else this thread wouldn't exist.

I have no problem with Bitcoin. Do you?

[traincarswreck]

Well there clearly is a problem or else this thread wouldn't exist.

Yes so to make both of you correct, as you both know you are, we simply point out that the markets act intelligently based on psychology.  They know that this consensus hasn't been secured, so they are frozen as we are in what the future will hold.  The whole world clearly awaits this decision, and of course they don't rationally or logically or consciously know this, but if we are following the markets and the current currency crisis, this is clear.

If we "believe" in bitcoin, that it is the future of our financial system, then we see that gold/usd/bonds are super inflated, all tangible things including bitcoin are down...and we are awaiting this consensus to create the signal to snap from the defact gold/usd standard to the bitcoin standard overnight. To many this is a dream, but it has been pointed out that clearly such things have happened in this past:

Revolutionary or Evolutionary Changes or Reforms of Systems of Money

   Our topic is focused on an ideal, specifically on “Ideal Money”, and it is not hard to see that there are naturally different routes by which a system of money might become either improved or might become, in some senses, more degraded and less worthy of praise. Change can come at a stroke, like when Alexander cut the Gordian knot, or it can come in a gradual fashion, through many smaller steps, and this latter can be classed as the pathway of “evolutionary change”.
    It is easy to illustrate cases of “revolutionary” reform or change in systems of money. A good example came in 1717 when Isaac Newton, supported by George II, fixed the value of the local UK currency to a precise amount of gold that defined the value of the currency (the “pound”) in such a way that it was immediately recognizable throughout the Continent (of Europe) as of a fixed value in relation to generally accepted standards (of the time). (And this was the origin of the “gold standard”.)
    Another example of revolutionary change was when Argentina attempted to establish an internationally respectable system of money by means of a “currency board”. (This attempt failed conspicuously, but the failure was rather similar to a bankruptcy event involving an ordinary commercial bank which simply turned out to have insuffic-ient “capital”.)  
    When the use of paper and printing was developed in China that made possible a “revolutionary” change, namely the introduction of paper money.
    Jacques Rueff, F. A. von Hayek, and R. Mundell are notable scholars and economists who have particularly contributed to the theories of how a system or systems of money might be improved in an effectively revolutionary fashion. For example there has been a quite dramatic improvement in the (internationally perceived apparent) quality of the money used in the countries of Italy and Greece simply because they have moved through the revol-utionary transition of renouncing the use of the lira or the drachma and have accepted the use of the newly established “euro” unit.

Not completely unrelated, we have shown under the concept of "ideal poker" that certain "network" standard too have dramatically arisen over night to end old standards.  And that such network have essentially evolved into "e-currencies" that are like an archaic version of bitcoin.  Such dramatic change does in fact happen over night, regardless of whether popular public opinion is "complacent":

Shortly after the contract was awarded, the start of the American Civil War caused the stage line to cease operation. From March 1861, the Pony Express ran mail only between Salt Lake City and Sacramento. The Pony Express announced its closure on October 26, 1861, two days after the transcontinental telegraph reached Salt Lake City and connected Omaha, Nebraska and Sacramento, California. Other telegraph lines connected points along the line and other cities on the east and west coasts.[61]

[AtheistAKASaneBrain]

For fuck sakes guys just look at the polls. How not to fork?

[traincarswreck]

In this tab, you have chosen some parameters

so if we can agree on parametres, maybe it's possible to find a wait to have the network alone be able to monitor those parameters and auto adjust block size according the parameters of our "best guess", instead of fixed or linear guess value

so our guess will be auto corrected a little bit by reality

We must be clear on this, we can not do it.  This is the very problem, we MUST guess.  For example, consensus in the future will likely be impossible, in the near future even. And further more it has been shown that a market type solution that "determines" an adjusting size shifts the problem elsewhere.  Our hands are seemingly truly tied on this. But its not at all at a loss, the top elite know this is the purpose of this project, its just a matter of explaining it.  It simply means bitcoin is not for buying coffee, but for other types of transactions.  If we are okay with that, then we have consensus, if it upsets us, then we might not have consensus and the limit must remain 1mb.

This is what I understand the problem to be.  But the solution that arises is slightly different than it appears, because there is a difference between our logical conclusion in this dialogue and the truth and reality of when it comes time to "vote".  I liken this then to poker, that we can bluff now, and huff about our strategy, but when it comes go/crunch time, time to act, time to fork...each of us must reveal our hand...

If I have outlined this well, then eventually I would like to relevate the solutions/strategies proposed in "ideal poker"...

in other words, if this is in fact a poker problem...I am the best poker player in the world.  If we need a credible bluff, I can in fact relevate it.

[Buffer Overflow]

Well there clearly is a problem or else this thread wouldn't exist.

I have no problem with Bitcoin. Do you?

No. But with an analogy I feel bitcoin's brakepad friction linings are getting low. Sure they work fine for now, but I would rather replace them with fresh pads now.
Waiting until transactions start stacking up and everyone panicking, is the equivalent of letting the pads wear down to the metal backplate with possibly fatal consequences.

[Buffer Overflow]

For fuck sakes guys just look at the polls. How not to fork?

I wouldn't take too much notice of that poll. It's not sock puppet proof.

[RoadStress]

So we (network consensus) should wait until we have full 1MB blocks until we start considering increasing the block size?

Yes. If that ever proves problematic that is.

Well there clearly is a problem or else this thread wouldn't exist.

I have no problem with Bitcoin. Do you?

Well I thought that at this point it's obvious that the Bitcoin network can't scale to anything. It can't scale to 1M users making lots of transactions per month and it can't scale to additional layers built on top of it. You don't see this as a problem? If yes what's the reason behind that because I really don't see it.

Why should people start using Bitcoin if they will not be able to use it once we reach a certain number of users? Why should developers develop stuff if it will not be usable after a certain point? I would really like to understand this.