Bitcoin Forum
April 06, 2020, 10:20:19 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.19.1 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Poll
Question: Bitcoin fork proposal by respected Bitcoin lead dev Gavin Andresen, to increase the block size from 1MB to 20MB.
pro
anti
agnostic
DGAF

Pages: « 1 ... 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 [110] 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Bitcoin 20MB Fork  (Read 154258 times)
onemorexmr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 252
Merit: 250



View Profile
March 10, 2015, 08:41:57 PM
 #2181

An effective block size limit doesn't mean that some transactions get more expensive - it means all the transactions which are allowd to be process become more expensive and the rest are prohibited entirely (right up until Bitcoin becomes so completely unfit for purpose that it's abandoned entirely)

Abandoned entirely?  There you go again, mongering DOOOOM without basis in fact to scare people into a panic so they will accept GigaBloat in haste.

If you don't believe Bitcoin is antifragile, sell your coins and GTFO.  Start GavinCoin and let it try to compete with SatoshiCoin.

It's been a pleasure watching DP and Davout slap you forkers around all over this thread.

This is the the crux of the matter, and where the pro-bloat side lose the debate:

The true value that Bitcoin brings to the table is not "everyone gets to write into the holy ledger", it is instead "everyone gets to benefit from sane and non-inflationary financial instutions whose sanity and honesty are ensured by the holy blockchain".



if all day-to-day transactions are offchain we might just abandon bitcoin and use gold certificates instead.

but i do understand why exchanges and some btc-companies are interested in a small block size: they want to be our new banks...

XMR || Monero || monerodice.net || xmr.to || mymonero.com || openalias.org || you think bitcoin is fungible? watch this
1586211619
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1586211619

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1586211619
Reply with quote  #2

1586211619
Report to moderator
1586211619
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1586211619

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1586211619
Reply with quote  #2

1586211619
Report to moderator
1586211619
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1586211619

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1586211619
Reply with quote  #2

1586211619
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1586211619
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1586211619

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1586211619
Reply with quote  #2

1586211619
Report to moderator
1586211619
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1586211619

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1586211619
Reply with quote  #2

1586211619
Report to moderator
R2D221
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 658
Merit: 500



View Profile
March 10, 2015, 08:42:54 PM
 #2182

It's difficult to understand the exponential nature of the network effect without a visual aide, since humans don't intuitively understand exponential functions.



There's too much potential value to be realized by a universal monetary ledger to imagine that some kind of fragmented solution will successfully compete.

Competing blockchains are not "fragmented."  They are linked through exchanges, and soon by SuperNet/Blocknet type interconnections.

Your illustration is extremely simplistic.  I think you know enough economics to realize that.

If not, please educate yourself on the related concepts of diseconomies of scale and negative marginal return.

Because more is different.   Smiley

This is the network effect in graphical form. Diseconomies of scale have little to do with this concept.

An economy based on endless growth is unsustainable.
Lauda
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2534
Merit: 2496


Exchange Bitcoin quickly-https://blockchain.com.do


View Profile WWW
March 10, 2015, 08:52:33 PM
 #2183

I saw a post on one of the bitcoin news sites the other day talking about gavin's discussion at mitbitcoinclub and they were saying that he still says a hard-fork to increase transaction size is in the works.  That he thinks it won't be in the next version but possibly could be in the one after.  That he has to achieve consensus on with the "5 core developers" which have push access to the git repo.
There is no reason not to go forward with the fork actually. The anti-fork brigade will probably be disregarded.
I'm pretty sure that everyone will thank Gavin once the blocks go over 1MB.

sed
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


View Profile
March 10, 2015, 08:58:22 PM
 #2184

I saw a post on one of the bitcoin news sites the other day talking about gavin's discussion at mitbitcoinclub and they were saying that he still says a hard-fork to increase transaction size is in the works.  That he thinks it won't be in the next version but possibly could be in the one after.  That he has to achieve consensus on with the "5 core developers" which have push access to the git repo.
There is no reason not to go forward with the fork actually. The anti-fork brigade will probably be disregarded.
I'm pretty sure that everyone will thank Gavin once the blocks go over 1MB.

I haven't followed all the technical details but there was some pretty strong words about how the anti-fork brigade had a plan to attack the forked blockchain and it *seemed* reasonably scary what they were saying.  Maybe it was overblown?  Maybe some of those folks have come around now?
Cryddit
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 924
Merit: 1044


View Profile
March 10, 2015, 09:14:08 PM
 #2185


I haven't followed all the technical details but there was some pretty strong words about how the anti-fork brigade had a plan to attack the forked blockchain and it *seemed* reasonably scary what they were saying.  Maybe it was overblown?  Maybe some of those folks have come around now?

Nope.  But not to worry; if a fork actually happens, they will have no wherewithal to attack the new chain.

If miners like the idea, they publish the new block version number in their headers.  If they don't, they don't, and no fork happens.

If 75% of the blocks mined in the last 1000 have the new block version number, the miners are free to make a >1Mb block.  But nobody has to.  It could be quite some time before an actual >1Mb block and subsequent fork happens.  Anyway if a fork does happen at that point, the people who want to "attack" the block chain have, by procedure, less than 25% of the hashing power.  Which flatly isn't enough to have a noticeable effect on the new block chain.

If and when we reach the point where 95% of the blocks published in the last 1000 have the new block version number, then clients will start rejecting any blocks with the old block version number, and the fork will be enforced from that point onward whether the blocks formed are >1Mbyte or not.  And if the fork happens at that point, the "attackers" are left with 5% or less of the hashing power, and the threat of an attack is sort of like pointing an unloaded BB gun at an elephant.
sed
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


View Profile
March 10, 2015, 09:17:08 PM
 #2186

@cryddit, that's great info.  Thanks for catching me up.  This does seem like a very smart way to go about the fork.  If the fork happens, it happens in a way that it can't be attacked easily; if it doesn't happen (because miners don't go for it) then it doesn't happen.  Very cool.
davout
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372
Merit: 1002


1davout


View Profile WWW
March 10, 2015, 09:18:04 PM
 #2187

If and when we reach the point where 95% of the blocks published in the last 1000 have the new block version number

That is, if someone with commit access doesn't change the requirement to, say, 60%. Because good reasons and won't you think of the children.

davout
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372
Merit: 1002


1davout


View Profile WWW
March 10, 2015, 09:19:13 PM
 #2188

If the fork happens, it happens in a way that it can't be attacked easily;

Well, if it could be attacked easily it wouldn't really be bitcoin anymore anyway Cheesy

onemorexmr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 252
Merit: 250



View Profile
March 10, 2015, 09:19:48 PM
 #2189

If and when we reach the point where 95% of the blocks published in the last 1000 have the new block version number

That is, if someone with commit access doesn't change the requirement to, say, 60%. Because good reasons and won't you think of the children.


if that would be his intention why do you think he made the 80% proposal in the first place?
he could just have committed it and send out a warning message to all "urgent; please update"

XMR || Monero || monerodice.net || xmr.to || mymonero.com || openalias.org || you think bitcoin is fungible? watch this
Mikestang
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1274
Merit: 1000



View Profile
March 10, 2015, 09:27:35 PM
 #2190

I saw a post on one of the bitcoin news sites the other day talking about gavin's discussion at mitbitcoinclub and they were saying that he still says a hard-fork to increase transaction size is in the works.  That he thinks it won't be in the next version but possibly could be in the one after.  That he has to achieve consensus on with the "5 core developers" which have push access to the git repo.

Just read that earlier today, here is the link: http://insidebitcoins.com/news/gavin-andresen-optimistic-about-scaling-bitcoin/30652
Quote
“I’m actually, right now, working on just getting consensus among the five, what I call, core developers — the five developers who have push access to the git code. I think I’m getting close to convincing them that we have a plan that will work. I’m probably going to have to write some more code . . . I think we have a year to eighteen months. I would love the next release of bitcoin — the next major release, which will be sometime in the June timeframe — to have a scheduled hardfork to increase the block size in it. I probably won’t get there. It’ll probably be in the release after that, but we’ll see.”
Cryddit
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 924
Merit: 1044


View Profile
March 10, 2015, 09:35:23 PM
 #2191

If and when we reach the point where 95% of the blocks published in the last 1000 have the new block version number

That is, if someone with commit access doesn't change the requirement to, say, 60%. Because good reasons and won't you think of the children.


Why the hell would someone do that?  Nobody wants a fork that can be attacked.  We don't want it to happen until you and those who agree with you can be safely ignored.

justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400
Merit: 1006



View Profile
March 10, 2015, 09:36:58 PM
 #2192

Competing blockchains are not "fragmented."  They are linked through exchanges, and soon by SuperNet/Blocknet type interconnections.

Your illustration is extremely simplistic.  I think you know enough economics to realize that.
I wonder what that last section at the end of my most recent blog post means...
davout
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372
Merit: 1002


1davout


View Profile WWW
March 10, 2015, 09:41:45 PM
 #2193

Why the hell would someone do that?  Nobody wants a fork that can be attacked.  We don't want it to happen until you and those who agree with you can be safely ignored.

That would be a way to force the fork, under the assumption that the threats are empty.

sardokan
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1414
Merit: 1003



View Profile
March 10, 2015, 10:00:58 PM
 #2194

Why the hell would someone do that?  Nobody wants a fork that can be attacked.  We don't want it to happen until you and those who agree with you can be safely ignored.

That would be a way to force the fork, under the assumption that the threats are empty.

Why not a 49-3 ?

Sorry, stupid french joke, I'm out  Grin
davout
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372
Merit: 1002


1davout


View Profile WWW
March 10, 2015, 10:08:26 PM
 #2195

Why not a 49-3 ?

C'est l'idée Cheesy

Lauda
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2534
Merit: 2496


Exchange Bitcoin quickly-https://blockchain.com.do


View Profile WWW
March 10, 2015, 10:18:22 PM
 #2196

I haven't followed all the technical details but there was some pretty strong words about how the anti-fork brigade had a plan to attack the forked blockchain and it *seemed* reasonably scary what they were saying.  Maybe it was overblown?  Maybe some of those folks have come around now?
Why would this be scary? They've openly said that they would do it, right? You know their names, right?
Then sue them for whatever you want. They do realize that when publicly exposed they are at risk, one could easily come up to their place and *insert action*.

Anyhow I wouldn't be worried. First they've tried to win by using bad arguments, this failed so they've gotten a bit more offensive.

davout
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372
Merit: 1002


1davout


View Profile WWW
March 10, 2015, 10:33:24 PM
 #2197

Then sue

Haha, seriously?


one could easily come up to their place and *insert action*.

Bitcointalk, inhabited by this very special brand of geniuses...

DooMAD
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2296
Merit: 1535


Leave no FUD unchallenged


View Profile WWW
March 10, 2015, 10:43:48 PM
 #2198

It's been a pleasure watching DP and Davout slap you forkers around all over this thread.

Which thread have you been watching?



An effective block size limit doesn't mean that some transactions get more expensive - it means all the transactions which are allowd to be process become more expensive and the rest are prohibited entirely (right up until Bitcoin becomes so completely unfit for purpose that it's abandoned entirely)

Abandoned entirely?  There you go again, mongering DOOOOM without basis in fact to scare people into a panic so they will accept GigaBloat in haste.

This isn't scaremongering.  If you still haven't understood the multiple posts explaining exactly what will happen when transactions don't make it into the blocks because they're full, then you need to learn how this system actually works.  I'll repeat one of them in case:

If the userbase increases and blocks are full, the choices are as follows:

  • Pay an average fee and still wait for the next available block that isn't full (which will take longer and longer as more users join, even if you pay a fee)
  • Pay an above-average fee and hope that it's more than everyone else is paying (and if you don't guess correctly, wait for the next block)
  • Go off chain and hope that whoever you trusted doesn't run off with the coins
  • Use another coin

Obviously the whales won't mind paying the above-average fee, but everyone else will be forced to introduce risk to their transaction.  It will either be delayed, or if you go off chain, you have to place trust in a third party.  Guaranteed security for them, risk for everyone else.



Start GavinCoin and let it try to compete with SatoshiCoin.

Yes, we will, that's why we're having a fork.  Again, which thread have you been watching? 



This is the the crux of the matter, and where the pro-bloat side lose the debate:

The true value that Bitcoin brings to the table is not "everyone gets to write into the holy ledger", it is instead "everyone gets to benefit from sane and non-inflationary financial instutions whose sanity and honesty are ensured by the holy blockchain".

No, that's where you lose the debate.  Bitcoin's value is that everyone gets to write into the ledger and the fork will ensure that ideal is maintained.  Why would anyone want to use a system that doesn't allow them to write into the ledger?  A system that guarantees security for the few but forces risk and uncertainty onto the many?  A system that won't process transactions quickly unless you're paying a huge fee?  No one is going to settle for a second-tier service because a bunch of elitists think they're better than everyone else.

davout
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372
Merit: 1002


1davout


View Profile WWW
March 10, 2015, 10:56:28 PM
 #2199

No one is going to settle for a second-tier service because a bunch of elitists think they're better than everyone else.

Said the guy crammed in an economy-class seat.

Lauda
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2534
Merit: 2496


Exchange Bitcoin quickly-https://blockchain.com.do


View Profile WWW
March 10, 2015, 10:57:35 PM
 #2200

Then sue

Haha, seriously?

Bitcointalk, inhabited by this very special brand of geniuses...
Why not?

@Guess why Satoshi is in the dark.  Smiley  You never know who you might encounter.. With that "attack" you will be openly provoking anyone who sided with the fork. Don't expect people to be good to you after doing evil deeds.
It is interesting that such sentences are coming from the anti brigade though.

Pages: « 1 ... 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 [110] 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!