Bitcoin Forum
April 05, 2020, 01:34:37 AM *
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 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 [40] 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 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 ... 131 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Bitcoin 20MB Fork  (Read 154258 times)
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3150
Merit: 1079


View Profile
February 07, 2015, 08:17:51 PM
 #781

We can and should view the 'bloatchain' or 'gavincoin' hard fork effort as simply an attack.

An attack? To remove a constraint that was always meant to be temporary? That's an attack?

Did I stutter?

Lot's of things that were hypothesized such as pruning have yet to happen.  Also it was very unclear who would be embracing the system and why in the early times.  With six years of history and ecosystem evolution it is perfectly relevant to re-evaluate certain things.  And, as always, it would be simplistic to assume that everyone who was involved were always fully transparent and accurate with their thoughts.  Satoshi had to make the best use of the resources he found at his disposal, and he himself may not have had a God-like understanding of all of the factors anyway.


1586050477
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1586050477

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1586050477
Reply with quote  #2

1586050477
Report to moderator
1586050477
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1586050477

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1586050477
Reply with quote  #2

1586050477
Report to moderator
1586050477
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1586050477

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1586050477
Reply with quote  #2

1586050477
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1586050477
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1586050477

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1586050477
Reply with quote  #2

1586050477
Report to moderator
1586050477
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1586050477

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1586050477
Reply with quote  #2

1586050477
Report to moderator
kingcolex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2156
Merit: 1245



View Profile
February 07, 2015, 08:20:03 PM
 #782

blocking these accounts increases readability of the thread by magnitudes:

-R2D221
-LaudaM
-Roadstress
-Buffer Overflow
-kingcolex
Lol What? You mean the people who aren't trolling or spamming for anti fork?

██████
████
███████
████████████
███████████
████████████
█████
███████████
█████████
███████████
██████████████████
████████████████████
█████████████████
  Bruno's final exit scam. Please help.
benjamindees
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330
Merit: 1000


View Profile
February 07, 2015, 08:21:32 PM
 #783

there is no reason to use Bitcoin now that Monero is the perfect virtual cash

Alts will continue to evolve and make Bitcoin pointless with time.

Two!  Two alt-coin shills!  Aah, aah, aah!

/lightning

Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics
redsn0w
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1778
Merit: 1041


#Free market


View Profile
February 07, 2015, 08:21:44 PM
 #784

blocking these accounts increases readability of the thread by magnitudes:

-R2D221
-LaudaM
-Roadstress
-Buffer Overflow
-kingcolex
Lol What? You mean the people who aren't trolling or spamming for anti fork?

I think Muuurrrrica is not a fan of decentralization, let wait this fork and we will see who *follow* it and who not  Roll Eyes.
Muuurrrrica!
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 84
Merit: 10


View Profile
February 07, 2015, 08:33:02 PM
 #785

blocking these accounts increases readability of the thread by magnitudes:

-R2D221
-LaudaM
-Roadstress
-Buffer Overflow
-kingcolex
Lol What? You mean the people who aren't trolling or spamming for anti fork?

I think Muuurrrrica is not a fan of decentralization, let wait this fork and we will see who *follow* it and who not  Roll Eyes.


lol, how full of shit some people are  Cheesy
redsn0w
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1778
Merit: 1041


#Free market


View Profile
February 07, 2015, 08:38:26 PM
 #786

blocking these accounts increases readability of the thread by magnitudes:

-R2D221
-LaudaM
-Roadstress
-Buffer Overflow
-kingcolex
Lol What? You mean the people who aren't trolling or spamming for anti fork?

I think Muuurrrrica is not a fan of decentralization, let wait this fork and we will see who *follow* it and who not  Roll Eyes.


lol, how full of shit some people are  Cheesy

...or we can name this "freedom of speech" , what do you think ? If you will not like the 20 Mb fork "stay" in the other chain, and don't update your client.
R2D221
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 658
Merit: 500



View Profile
February 07, 2015, 08:44:17 PM
 #787

We can and should view the 'bloatchain' or 'gavincoin' hard fork effort as simply an attack.

An attack? To remove a constraint that was always meant to be temporary? That's an attack?

Did I stutter?

Lot's of things that were hypothesized such as pruning have yet to happen.  Also it was very unclear who would be embracing the system and why in the early times.  With six years of history and ecosystem evolution it is perfectly relevant to re-evaluate certain things.  And, as always, it would be simplistic to assume that everyone who was involved were always fully transparent and accurate with their thoughts.  Satoshi had to make the best use of the resources he found at his disposal, and he himself may not have had a God-like understanding of all of the factors anyway.

That still fails to explain why you think raising the limit is an attack.

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

Activity: 1652
Merit: 1015



View Profile
February 07, 2015, 08:46:44 PM
 #788

blocking these accounts increases readability of the thread by magnitudes:

-R2D221
-LaudaM
-Roadstress
-Buffer Overflow
-kingcolex

You know it boggles the mind why you are even on this thread in the first place due to this quote:
The future of cryptocurrency will be not bitcoin
If your predicting this why all the hand wringing over the bitcoin update as it won't effect you in the slightest?


Buffer Overflow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652
Merit: 1015



View Profile
February 07, 2015, 08:50:02 PM
 #789

We can and should view the 'bloatchain' or 'gavincoin' hard fork effort as simply an attack.

Yeah your going hit a brick wall attempting this angle. Ain't gonna work.

DooMAD
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2296
Merit: 1535


Leave no FUD unchallenged


View Profile WWW
February 07, 2015, 09:02:27 PM
 #790

Bitcoin always has and always will mean different things to different people.  I'm not joking when I say that I believe the hard-fork is a deliberate attack on the part of some people and a stepping-stone toward destroying Bitcoin by destroying fungibility (chiefly through {color}-listing.)

As you seem to be the only person in the thread who sees a connection between a higher block size and blacklisting coins, perhaps you could walk us down the logic path you took to reach that conclusion?  Sounds like an attempt at scaremongering to me.  Either that, or the anti-fork crowd are running out of legitimate arguments and are getting desperate.

Stephen Gornick
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2506
Merit: 1001


View Profile
February 07, 2015, 09:05:45 PM
 #791

If there is no hardfork, will even UTXOs with just 0.001 bitcoins (one millibit) become economically unspendable?

Let's say with blocks filling we have fees rising to about 0.001 per 1K of data (on average).   So with that you have fees totaling about 1 bitcoin per block.  That's about 144 bitcoins per day.  (in addition to the block reward subsidy of 3,600 bitcoins per day).   So even with fees of 0.001 per 1K miners are still earning less than 4% of total revenue from fees, with the rest of their income being the block reward subsidy.

But here's here I'm seeing the problem.  With space becoming scarce, the fees make a whole lot of UTXOs economically unspendable.  A 1K transaction might be something like six inputs and two outputs.  So with a fee of 0.001 means the marginal cost for each UTXO input is about 0.0001  (roughly 300 bytes for the trx and two outputs, and ~120 bytes for each input [Edit: rough guess, but in the ballpark I believe]).  That means the fee at  0.001 per 1K costs about 10% for each UTXO of one millibit.

This wasn't something that concerned me previously because fees had only been dropping over time.  If fees on those UTXOs were costly then you simply don't spend them and you could wait for the next drop in fees.  With blocks filling causing rising fees (to 0.001 bitcoin per 1K size) then the penalty for retaining UTXOs of one millibit or less can be 10% (or more!).

And that's only with the required fees rising 0.001 bitcoin per 1K.   What if it rises to 0.01 bitcoin per 1K size.  Now your marginal cost for each UTXO input is about 0.001 which means each and every UTXO of 0.001 or less has become completely worthless (i.e., it costs as much in fees to spend as it is worth).

The argument against Bitcoin value rising being a problem was that with divisibility we could just transact in smaller and smaller amounts.   We even saw a push to start using the term "bits" (0.000001 bitcoin).  But if any UTXO not significantly above 0.001 bitcoin becomes economically unspendable then "divisibility to 8 decimals" as being something that solves the deflationary problem is no longer rational counterargument.

I don't know what is worse -- monetary inflation causing a 4% devaluation per-year, or each year rising fees causing 4% of the funds in your wallet to become unspendable.

Unichange.me

            █
            █
            █
            █
            █
            █
            █
            █
            █
            █
            █
            █
            █
            █
            █
            █


master sato
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 165
Merit: 100


View Profile
February 07, 2015, 09:09:52 PM
 #792

pro , We need it and we will see it at some point. The earlier we start the transition the better.
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3150
Merit: 1079


View Profile
February 07, 2015, 09:32:49 PM
 #793

We can and should view the 'bloatchain' or 'gavincoin' hard fork effort as simply an attack.

An attack? To remove a constraint that was always meant to be temporary? That's an attack?

Did I stutter?

Lot's of things that were hypothesized such as pruning have yet to happen.  Also it was very unclear who would be embracing the system and why in the early times.  With six years of history and ecosystem evolution it is perfectly relevant to re-evaluate certain things.  And, as always, it would be simplistic to assume that everyone who was involved were always fully transparent and accurate with their thoughts.  Satoshi had to make the best use of the resources he found at his disposal, and he himself may not have had a God-like understanding of all of the factors anyway.

That still fails to explain why you think raising the limit is an attack.

And:

Bitcoin always has and always will mean different things to different people.  I'm not joking when I say that I believe the hard-fork is a deliberate attack on the part of some people and a stepping-stone toward destroying Bitcoin by destroying fungibility (chiefly through {color}-listing.)

As you seem to be the only person in the thread who sees a connection between a higher block size and blacklisting coins, perhaps you could walk us down the logic path you took to reach that conclusion?  Sounds like an attempt at scaremongering to me.  Either that, or the anti-fork crowd are running out of legitimate arguments and are getting desperate.

I cannot take full credit for this.  The basic idea came from Hearn back in the 2010 timeframe when he said something like 'mining will be economically viable only for large specialists and there is little difference between between confiscating bitcoin and keeping someone from spending it for 20 years.'  This was back before we 'did' Libya and the example he used was Qaddafi IIRC.  Subsequently he spoke with apparent embrace of color-listing at the 2013 SJ conference (which I witnessed) and provoked a quasi-secret discussion of it within the Bitcoin Foundation.

So, let's see if we can stay on the ball here:

 - As the transaction rate increases, fewer and fewer people are 'peers' (any more than a debit-card user is a 'peer' in the SWIFT system when they get cash from a machine.)  The more they throw up their hands and just use Multibit or Blockchain.info, the less they know or care about 'P2P' and decentralization.

 - Separately, on a sufficiently large timeline (months to years) nobody can mine in the black unless they can subsidize their income by monetizing alternate revenue streams.  Mostly user intelligence data would be my guess.  This could be for their own use if they are giants, or more likely, by selling data to giants.  This promotes the 'specialization' that Mike eludes to since it is only realistic with high-value deployments.  (When you start to see 'cash back for using bitcoin' that is one gift horse you probably should inspect the mouth of...and it would not be a bad idea now given the subsidies that users are currently receiving.)

 - The more trinket-buying which is possible by the sheep using Multibit, the more corporate entities like TigerDirect will jump on board.

 - Corporate entities and large mining deployments when faced with punitive actions for not following regulations will have no realistic options but to tow the line.  If the law says 'comply with Bitcoin Licence requirements', that's what they'll do (though retailer types could just bow out at that point.)  It would be a logical system design for a small number of specialist outfits such as 'CoinValidation' to operate registry and validation (color-listing) services so their customers (miners and retailers) can just plug in to their API.  With a charter from state, business will be forced to their door.  That seals the loss of fungibility I mentioned.

There are many reasons to favor destruction of Bitcoin in this manner or others.  It is a 'disruptive' technology which threatens vested interests who are doing quite well with state sponsored fiat, thank you very much.  And, to be honest, Bitcoin provides a means for bad people to do bad things so it is not irrational to be against it for some legitimate reasons (though I find it ignorant and short sighted.)  Mostly, Bitcoin is in the sights of attackers so if/when it falls certain other 'alts' which are less susceptible to the same failure modes may end up winners.  Probably there are some people who recognize the potential for Bitcoin to succumb in a manner I've described and see it as an opportunity for their own project.


Pecunia non olet
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 756
Merit: 101



View Profile
February 07, 2015, 09:34:55 PM
 #794


We can and should view the 'bloatchain' or 'gavincoin' hard fork effort as simply an attack.

rest assured many do see it that way

► BLOCKBURN ◄ ★WHERE CRYPTOCURRENCY AND ONLINE GAMING MEET★ ► BLOCKBURN ◄
───●●───●●───●●───●●───●●─[   ABOUT US   ]─●●───●●───●●───●●───●●───
Website|Medium|LinkedIn|Telegram|Reddit|CoinMarketCap
Buffer Overflow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652
Merit: 1015



View Profile
February 07, 2015, 09:41:12 PM
 #795

Sounds like an attempt at scaremongering to me.
Never seen any evidence of that. LOL Cheesy


And now the hardfork will seal its fate ...
Gavincoin hardfork will just make sure it dies faster.
The only thing that's certain is: Gavincoin won't be able to call itself 'Bitcoin'
The hubris is going to kill it.
No consensus on hardfork = end of the party

R2D221
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 658
Merit: 500



View Profile
February 07, 2015, 09:49:15 PM
 #796

- As the transaction rate increases, fewer and fewer people are 'peers' (any more than a debit-card user is a 'peer' in the SWIFT system when they get cash from a machine.)  The more they throw up their hands and just use Multibit or Blockchain.info, the less they know or care about 'P2P' and decentralization.

I don't see why people see this as an issue. Even Satoshi knew and accepted this would happen:

Quote from: Satoshi Nakamoto
Long before the network gets anywhere near as large as that, it would be safe for users to use Simplified Payment Verification (section eight) to check for double spending, which only requires having the chain of block headers, or about 12KB per day.  Only people trying to create new coins would need to run network nodes.  At first, most users would run network nodes, but as the network grows beyond a certain point, it would be left more and more to specialists with server farms of specialized hardware.  A server farm would only need to have one node on the network and the rest of the LAN connects with that one node.

What has made humanity so successful as a whole is specialization. For example, I study computer technologies, but ask me to design a house or to sell a product or to do the accounting of a business, and I will fail miserably, because none of that is my speciality. So, I don't get why people get upset when they say “Not everyone will be able to be a miner”. Well, of course not. Not everyone is able to do everything, and specialization is a good thing. And while people may think that this leads to centralization, the truth is that miners are not a single entity and are still many of them for this to be avoided.

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

Activity: 3150
Merit: 1079


View Profile
February 07, 2015, 09:52:03 PM
 #797


We can and should view the 'bloatchain' or 'gavincoin' hard fork effort as simply an attack.

rest assured many do see it that way

I've noticed in the software engineering field that (very occasionally) one unusually skilled engineer is worth literally 10 average ones.  Alas, I was never one of the unusual ones and I've only worked with a handful of them.

I suspect the people who really understand the ecosystem on a wholistic level will have a higher percentage of these unusual types, and in distributed-crypto-currency-land an unusual individual may have an even greater value ratio.  Thus, I don't really care all that much about the numbers of foot soldiers in a boots-on-the-ground numeric.

Indeed, the idiots in the Bitcoin ecosystem today are numerous and they are much more of a liability than they are an asset.  Their job is done.  Disposing of them (as native Bitcoin core users) is yet another reason to look forward to a fork war.


Cryddit
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 924
Merit: 1044


View Profile
February 07, 2015, 09:55:54 PM
 #798

If there is no hardfork, will even UTXOs with just 0.001 bitcoins (one millibit) become economically unspendable?

But here's here I'm seeing the problem.  With space becoming scarce, the fees make a whole lot of UTXOs economically unspendable.  A 1K transaction might be something like six inputs and two outputs.  So with a fee of 0.001 means the marginal cost for each UTXO input is about 0.0001  (roughly 300 bytes for the trx and two outputs, and ~120 bytes for each input [Edit: rough guess, but in the ballpark I believe]).  That means the fee at  0.001 per 1K costs about 10% for each UTXO of one millibit.


I was thinking about this the other day.  Every increase in fees means more utxo's fit the definition of "dust" in that spending them would require more fees than they are worth.  And fees will definitely increase.  If we suppose that at some point in the future the blockchain will transfer absolutely huge amounts of value with each block, then securing it is going to take a large amount of capital investment, and the fees will be large enough to cover that capital investment.   If fees are based on securing million-dollar transactions, then paying the same for the identical bandwidth to secure a five-dollar transaction is going to be impractical at best.

In the short run though, after the next reward reduction, fees are likely to increase and a lot of the present holders (those with Satoshi Dice outputs for example) will likely find that they have a lot of unspendable outputs at some point.

RoadStress
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1862
Merit: 1002


View Profile
February 07, 2015, 09:56:42 PM
 #799

lol. Microtransactions bloat and Dos attack, here we come. 2.8 GB each day potentially. wow

didn't sync up for a week? Will take you a whole day to catch up.

People downloading the chain first time will leave the computer running for a month later on  Cheesy

Your internet provider will be outraged and cancel your contract if you're a bitcoin user  Cheesy

I think this whole story is pretty bizzarre

The solution is called blockchain pruning and it already exist. Just needs a bit more developing and testing. Your argument isn't such a big problem and this was already discussed if you would have read the last pages of the thread. Unless you are just another MP shit eating sockpuppet.

blocking these accounts increases readability of the thread by magnitudes:

-R2D221
-LaudaM
-Roadstress
-Buffer Overflow
-kingcolex

Yes block all the accounts that are pro fork so you and your master MP can stuff a lot more shit in you.

Quote
Name:    Muuurrrrica!
Date Registered:    December 07, 2014, 06:13:18 PM
Quote
Name:    homo homini lupus
Date Registered:    December 07, 2014, 05:53:10 PM
Quote
Name:    Pecunia non olet
Date Registered:    December 07, 2014, 05:55:09 PM

WHAT A SURPRISE! All these accounts are against the fork and they are attacking everyone that is pro-fork. Surprisingly all the accounts were created in the same day and around the same hour.  HEY MP GO EAT A BAG OF DICKS. Do not get fooled by these sock-puppets. It's MP jerking on his keyboard.


H/w Hosting Directory & Reputation - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=622998.0
RoadStress
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1862
Merit: 1002


View Profile
February 07, 2015, 10:01:01 PM
 #800

I don't see why people see this as an issue. Even Satoshi knew and accepted this would happen:

Cross-posting it here just so MP can eat more shit:

Satoshi had no limit on block sizes at all.   From block 1 it was legal to have a 2MB, 20MB, even 33MB block.   There was a 33.5MB limit on message length and since blocks are transmitted as a single message it would have limited blocks to only 33.5MB but even this wasn't a hard limit as new message type could have been added which transmitted blocks in other ways (i.e. header & txn hashes vs full transactions).

The 1MB "limit" was added as a temporary anti-spam measure 18 months later.   There was no voting, no significant discussion, and the commit wasn't made by Satoshi.  It actually was combined with a bunch of other unrelated changes and not even well documented at the time.  There is nothing which indicates this was a core design decision that Bitcoin would perpetually be limited to 1MB.

Of course people that have their own agenda like MP will chose to ignore or not reveal the true history of this 1MB limit. I think things are pretty much clear and done regarding this subject. Sathoshi never intended for a block size limit. It was introduced because we didn't know how to handle spam and it was the easier and the fastest way to limit it. But now after a period of time we can develop technical stuff to deal with the spam in other way than limiting the block size. Go Gavin fork! Suck it MP!

H/w Hosting Directory & Reputation - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=622998.0
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 [40] 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 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 ... 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!