Bitcoin 20MB Fork

[bambou]

...

Inverted bloom filters sound interesting. As to the rest... more content and less elitist rant and I might have got to the end of it :/

I agree, I wish you guys would scale down the 'derpery' for you have interesting things to say, sometimes.
But I try not to cloud my jugement with emotions, so I kinda dgaf, and I find it fun, sometimes.

You have nonetheless raised more than valid arguments, and as much as I respect Gavin for his work, this stincks the USG-ninja-highjacking-plan:

I think we should target somebody with a "pretty good" computer and a "pretty good" home internet connection.

That "pretty good" is "not enough".
So much for bitcoin's accessibility.

PS: so to the 'lulzlords', please sign me in for one of your 'home-node-to-go-box'.
This is gonna be fun.

[1715037487]

1715037487

[1715037487]

1715037487

[1715037487]

1715037487

[acoindr]

Now i see. Gavin announced chaos and drama to the press because he himself intends to create it. He gets a 30% veto and still wants to proceed. It's gonna rip. I just switched to Litecoin.
...

A sampling of 30% of average forum users isn't the same as 30% of the community, and certainly not the ecosystem. In reality individual users and organizations carry different weight. At the end of the day people who believe in Bitcoin (and invest their money into it) will do what they can to protect that value. The fork which has the most economic value will be the one most likely to survive with confidence of those who continue to accept it.

My understanding is a lot of heavily weighted entities in the ecosystem already support Gavin's proposed course. The larger challenge is for the minority to convince enough users - of all sorts, not just ideologues - to stand with them.

As it stands I think we already have, or can gain enough consensus to proceed with minimal discomfort. If there remains a market demand for 1MB blocks afterward it's certainly easy to have that. I don't understand the need to drag along those who want to ensure larger commerce adoption and market confidence. Cryptocurrencies don't operate in a vacuum, and they're not going away.

On a side note I also like Litecoin, another thing I was first to promote in the context of community growing pains.

[Chicago]

Now i see. Gavin announced chaos and drama to the press because he himself intends to create it. He gets a 30% veto and still wants to proceed. It's gonna rip. I just switched to Litecoin.

Someone even seems to buy up the old BitcoinScrypt for some reason. My gut feeling says: there is some reorganization in crypto space coming. R.I.P. Bitcoin.
Hardfork against 30% 'no' is not going to end well.

Well... for a while anyway you will have twice as many Bitcoins to spend.

Once the chaos is deliberate and the fork is pushed by upstream, the miners which want to secure the network and receive transaction fees with smaller block sizes will remain on the legacy version of the software and vote with their blockchain.

Users on residential networks using VoIP who suddenly cannot have a telephone call while they're supporting the network and uploading hundreds of megabytes of blocks every 10 minutes to their peers, will stop running a full node... making the forked chain even less secure. ( leading further to centralization on the fork with larger block sizes and a steep barrier to entry )

Vote 'NO' to this proposed bs (block size).

Kind Regards,
-Chicago

[acoindr]

... and uploading hundreds of megabytes of blocks every 10 minutes ...

Like I said, not all users are the same...

[bambou]

Third pass addressing the more common pseudo-arguments raised by the very stupid people that like the Gavin scamcoin proposal


X. A mousy Princeton graduate who resides in Amherst, Massachusetts and has lived his entire life firmly attached to the govenrment tit is going to "save Africa" from imaginary problems it doesn't actually have by inflating the Bitcoin blockchain to the point nobody but his USG owners can maintain a full record. This is good for Bitcoin.

You are an idiot. Go the fuck away.

XI. Raising the limit doesn't force the blocks to be filled. It just gives miners the option to make bigger blocks should market conditions make it to their advantage to do so.

This is not how economics work. Quoting Buffetti :

The domestic textile industry operates in a commodity business, competing in a world market in which substantial excess capacity exists. Much of the trouble we experienced was attributable, both directly and indirectly, to competition from foreign countries whose workers are paid a small fraction of the U.S. minimum wage. But that in no way means that our labor force deserves any blame for our closing. In fact, in comparison with employees of American industry generally, our workers were poorly paid, as has been the case throughout the textile business. In contract negotiations, union leaders and members were sensitive to our disadvantageous cost position and did not push for unrealistic wage increases or unproductive work practices. To the contrary, they tried just as hard as we did to keep us competitive. Even during our liquidation period they performed superbly. (Ironically, we would have been better off financially if our union had behaved unreasonably some years ago; we then would have recognized the impossible future that we faced, promptly closed down, and avoided significant future losses.)

Over the years, we had the option of making large capital expenditures in the textile operation that would have allowed us to somewhat reduce variable costs. Each proposal to do so looked like an immediate winner. Measured by standard return-on-investment tests, in fact, these proposals usually promised greater economic benefits than would have resulted from comparable expenditures in our highly-profitable candy and newspaper businesses.

But the promised benefits from these textile investments were illusory. Many of our competitors, both domestic and foreign, were stepping up to the same kind of expenditures and, once enough companies did so, their reduced costs became the baseline for reduced prices industrywide. Viewed individually, each company's capital investment decision appeared cost-effective and rational; viewed collectively, the decisions neutralized each other and were irrational, just as happens when each person watching a parade decides he can see a little better if he stands on tiptoes.

After each round of investment, all the players had more money in the game and returns remained anemic. Thus, we faced a miserable choice: huge capital investment would have helped to keep our textile business alive, but would have left us with terrible returns on ever-growing amounts of capital. After the investment, moreover, the foreign competition would still have retained a major, continuing advantage in labor costs. A refusal to invest, however, would make us increasingly non-competitive, even measured against domestic textile manufacturers. I always thought myself in the position described by Woody Allen in one of his movies: "More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness, the other to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly."

For an understanding of how the to-invest-or-not-to-invest dilemma plays out in a commodity business, it is instructive to look at Burlington Industries, by far the largest U.S. textile company both 21 years ago and now. In 1964 Burlington had sales of $1.2 billion against our $50 million. It had strengths in both distribution and production that we could never hope to match and also, of course, had an earnings record far superior to ours. Its stock sold at 60 at the end of 1964; ours was 13.

Burlington made a decision to stick to the textile business, and in 1985 had sales of about $2.8 billion. During the 1964-85 period, the company made capital expenditures of about $3 billion, far more than any other U.S. textile company and more than $200-per-share on that $60 stock. A very large part of the expenditures, I am sure, was devoted to cost improvement and expansion. Given Burlington's basic commitment to stay in textiles, I would also surmise that the company's capital decisions were quite rational.

Nevertheless, Burlington has lost sales volume in real dollars and has far lower returns on sales and equity now than 20 years ago. Split 2-for-1 in 1965, the stock now sells at 34-on an adjusted basis, just a little over its $60 price in 1964. Meanwhile, the CPI has more than tripled. Therefore, each share commands about one-third the purchasing power it did at the end of 1964. Regular dividends have been paid but they, too, have shrunk significantly in purchasing power.

This devastating outcome for the shareholders indicates what can happen when much brain power and energy are applied to a faulty premise. The situation is suggestive of Samuel Johnson's horse: "A horse that can count to ten is a remarkable horse, not a remarkable mathematician." Likewise, a textile company that allocates capital brilliantly within its industry is a remarkable textile company, but not a remarkable business.

My conclusion from my own experiences and from much observation of other businesses is that a good managerial record (measured by economic returns) is far more a function of what business boat you get into than it is of how effectively you row (though intelligence and effort help considerably, of course, in any business, good or bad). Some years ago I wrote: "When a management with a reputation for brilliance tackles a business with a reputation for poor fundamental economics, it is the reputation of the business that remains intact." Nothing has since changed my point of view on that matter. Should you find yourself in a chronically leaking boat, energy devoted to changing vessels is likely to be more productive than energy devoted to patching leaks.

So, no : infinite blocks to not give "the miners" any sort of option, because "the miners" as a collective noun do not exist. There exist individual miners exclusively, and the incentives of individuals are, should the Gavin scam actually be implemented, firmly oriented towards destroying the commons that is Bitcoin.

There's no way out of this problem, and simple ignorance of economy or game theory is not a solution.

XII. The current 1Mb limit is arbitrary. We want to change it. Please ignore the fact that the discussion is about whether to change or not to change, and please ignore that the onus is on whoever proposes change to justify it. Instead, buy into our pretense that the discussion is about "which arbitrary value". Because we're idiots, and so should be you!

Go away.

XIII. Bitcoin has worked fine so far, and is sending the world's elite running for cover - from political to financial to media elites. Clearly this means more of the same won't work in the future, and it must be changed to more closely conform to what these elites like to see, which only coincidentally happens to strictly resemble each and every other previous challenge to their authority, which only coincidentally happened to all fail. Because we're idiots, and so should be you! For equality!

Go away.

XIV. We all agree.

Good for you, too bad you're irrelevant. Bitcoin is about money and about power, not about opinion and social media. You can agree until you are blue in the face, that's not what makes a difference. Your public humiliation on this score - in case your shepherd be dumb enough to actually take the field and be humiliatedii - should be instructive for you.

Take notice on the why and the how you don't matter, understand why "MP doesn't cater to my idiocy which makes me want to support anything else" doesn't actually do anything, break through the shell of your own idiocy and start actually developing as a human being already. Going by your infantile behaviour this is clearly the first time you had the chance, but going by the messy state of the world around you it might actually be your last, too. Try and make the best of the very little you have at your disposal.

That'd be it. This third installment actually covers the entirety of the "arguments" brought by the idiots (and assorted incentivised shills / "political activists") pushing this particular attack on Bitcoin. Ridiculous how little they have, considering how much they cost their government, their parents and the Earth generally. But such is life.

this is hilarious.

[Eamorr]

Third pass addressing the more common pseudo-arguments raised by the very stupid people that like the Gavin scamcoin proposal


X. A mousy Princeton graduate who resides in Amherst, Massachusetts and has lived his entire life firmly attached to the govenrment tit is going to "save Africa" from imaginary problems it doesn't actually have by inflating the Bitcoin blockchain to the point nobody but his USG owners can maintain a full record. This is good for Bitcoin.

You are an idiot. Go the fuck away.

XI. Raising the limit doesn't force the blocks to be filled. It just gives miners the option to make bigger blocks should market conditions make it to their advantage to do so.

This is not how economics work. Quoting Buffetti :

The domestic textile industry operates in a commodity business, competing in a world market in which substantial excess capacity exists. Much of the trouble we experienced was attributable, both directly and indirectly, to competition from foreign countries whose workers are paid a small fraction of the U.S. minimum wage. But that in no way means that our labor force deserves any blame for our closing. In fact, in comparison with employees of American industry generally, our workers were poorly paid, as has been the case throughout the textile business. In contract negotiations, union leaders and members were sensitive to our disadvantageous cost position and did not push for unrealistic wage increases or unproductive work practices. To the contrary, they tried just as hard as we did to keep us competitive. Even during our liquidation period they performed superbly. (Ironically, we would have been better off financially if our union had behaved unreasonably some years ago; we then would have recognized the impossible future that we faced, promptly closed down, and avoided significant future losses.)

Over the years, we had the option of making large capital expenditures in the textile operation that would have allowed us to somewhat reduce variable costs. Each proposal to do so looked like an immediate winner. Measured by standard return-on-investment tests, in fact, these proposals usually promised greater economic benefits than would have resulted from comparable expenditures in our highly-profitable candy and newspaper businesses.

But the promised benefits from these textile investments were illusory. Many of our competitors, both domestic and foreign, were stepping up to the same kind of expenditures and, once enough companies did so, their reduced costs became the baseline for reduced prices industrywide. Viewed individually, each company's capital investment decision appeared cost-effective and rational; viewed collectively, the decisions neutralized each other and were irrational, just as happens when each person watching a parade decides he can see a little better if he stands on tiptoes.

After each round of investment, all the players had more money in the game and returns remained anemic. Thus, we faced a miserable choice: huge capital investment would have helped to keep our textile business alive, but would have left us with terrible returns on ever-growing amounts of capital. After the investment, moreover, the foreign competition would still have retained a major, continuing advantage in labor costs. A refusal to invest, however, would make us increasingly non-competitive, even measured against domestic textile manufacturers. I always thought myself in the position described by Woody Allen in one of his movies: "More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness, the other to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly."

For an understanding of how the to-invest-or-not-to-invest dilemma plays out in a commodity business, it is instructive to look at Burlington Industries, by far the largest U.S. textile company both 21 years ago and now. In 1964 Burlington had sales of $1.2 billion against our $50 million. It had strengths in both distribution and production that we could never hope to match and also, of course, had an earnings record far superior to ours. Its stock sold at 60 at the end of 1964; ours was 13.

Burlington made a decision to stick to the textile business, and in 1985 had sales of about $2.8 billion. During the 1964-85 period, the company made capital expenditures of about $3 billion, far more than any other U.S. textile company and more than $200-per-share on that $60 stock. A very large part of the expenditures, I am sure, was devoted to cost improvement and expansion. Given Burlington's basic commitment to stay in textiles, I would also surmise that the company's capital decisions were quite rational.

Nevertheless, Burlington has lost sales volume in real dollars and has far lower returns on sales and equity now than 20 years ago. Split 2-for-1 in 1965, the stock now sells at 34-on an adjusted basis, just a little over its $60 price in 1964. Meanwhile, the CPI has more than tripled. Therefore, each share commands about one-third the purchasing power it did at the end of 1964. Regular dividends have been paid but they, too, have shrunk significantly in purchasing power.

This devastating outcome for the shareholders indicates what can happen when much brain power and energy are applied to a faulty premise. The situation is suggestive of Samuel Johnson's horse: "A horse that can count to ten is a remarkable horse, not a remarkable mathematician." Likewise, a textile company that allocates capital brilliantly within its industry is a remarkable textile company, but not a remarkable business.

My conclusion from my own experiences and from much observation of other businesses is that a good managerial record (measured by economic returns) is far more a function of what business boat you get into than it is of how effectively you row (though intelligence and effort help considerably, of course, in any business, good or bad). Some years ago I wrote: "When a management with a reputation for brilliance tackles a business with a reputation for poor fundamental economics, it is the reputation of the business that remains intact." Nothing has since changed my point of view on that matter. Should you find yourself in a chronically leaking boat, energy devoted to changing vessels is likely to be more productive than energy devoted to patching leaks.

So, no : infinite blocks to not give "the miners" any sort of option, because "the miners" as a collective noun do not exist. There exist individual miners exclusively, and the incentives of individuals are, should the Gavin scam actually be implemented, firmly oriented towards destroying the commons that is Bitcoin.

There's no way out of this problem, and simple ignorance of economy or game theory is not a solution.

XII. The current 1Mb limit is arbitrary. We want to change it. Please ignore the fact that the discussion is about whether to change or not to change, and please ignore that the onus is on whoever proposes change to justify it. Instead, buy into our pretense that the discussion is about "which arbitrary value". Because we're idiots, and so should be you!

Go away.

XIII. Bitcoin has worked fine so far, and is sending the world's elite running for cover - from political to financial to media elites. Clearly this means more of the same won't work in the future, and it must be changed to more closely conform to what these elites like to see, which only coincidentally happens to strictly resemble each and every other previous challenge to their authority, which only coincidentally happened to all fail. Because we're idiots, and so should be you! For equality!

Go away.

XIV. We all agree.

Good for you, too bad you're irrelevant. Bitcoin is about money and about power, not about opinion and social media. You can agree until you are blue in the face, that's not what makes a difference. Your public humiliation on this score - in case your shepherd be dumb enough to actually take the field and be humiliatedii - should be instructive for you.

Take notice on the why and the how you don't matter, understand why "MP doesn't cater to my idiocy which makes me want to support anything else" doesn't actually do anything, break through the shell of your own idiocy and start actually developing as a human being already. Going by your infantile behaviour this is clearly the first time you had the chance, but going by the messy state of the world around you it might actually be your last, too. Try and make the best of the very little you have at your disposal.

That'd be it. This third installment actually covers the entirety of the "arguments" brought by the idiots (and assorted incentivised shills / "political activists") pushing this particular attack on Bitcoin. Ridiculous how little they have, considering how much they cost their government, their parents and the Earth generally. But such is life.

this is hilarious.

It would be if it weren't so tragic. Tragic to see Bitcoin devs debating this publicly - they should make the decision and do it. All the uncertainty does nobody any favours. Especially at a time where Bitcoin is trying for mainstream adoption. Others are doing doing the job of mainstream adoption much better. It's impossible to do when the sentiment is "the blockchain is broken".

[Gav1nFucksGoats]

... and uploading hundreds of megabytes of blocks every 10 minutes ...

Like I said, not all users are the same...

All shills, however, are the same.

So you scumbags had the "unanimity" a coupla months ago. Then MP bitchslapped you to all hell, and for about a week the argument was that whatever, unanimity doesn't matter because it's not like there's such a thing as weight, and a single voice with actual money can blow all of you windbags out of the water. Now that "unanimity" can't even be astroturfed into existence on a fucking forum, so you've suddenly discovered weighting?

Get fucked. Nobody wants to buy the Gavin scamcoin even at a 25% discount. What are you even talking about, majority of what? Bitpay made a loss. Coinbase never made a profit. MPEx made more last month than the entire USG ecosystem in Bitcoin, in its entire lifetime. A bunch of start-ups with no revenues, living series to series are going to compete with MP?

Lay off the pipe.

[davout]

Anyone got any constructive arguments against? Bitching about capitalism and the size of Gavins brain doesn't count.

Have a read.

[acoindr]

... and uploading hundreds of megabytes of blocks every 10 minutes ...

Like I said, not all users are the same...

All shills, however, are the same.

So you scumbags had the "unanimity" a coupla months ago. Then MP bitchslapped you to all hell, and for about a week the argument was that whatever, unanimity doesn't matter because it's not like there's such a thing as weight, and a single voice with actual money can blow all of you windbags out of the water. Now that "unanimity" can't even be astroturfed into existence on a fucking forum, so you've suddenly discovered weighting?

Get fucked. Nobody wants to buy the Gavin scamcoin even at a 25% discount. What are you even talking about, majority of what? Bitpay made a loss. Coinbase never made a profit. MPEx made more last month than the entire USG ecosystem in Bitcoin, in its entire lifetime. A bunch of start-ups with no revenues, living series to series are going to compete with MP?

Lay off the pipe.

Classy.

[Eamorr]

The division and indecision in the Bitcoin community (not to mention immaturity) must be startling to any outsider looking in.

[bambou]

...

It would be if it weren't so tragic. Tragic to see Bitcoin devs debating this publicly - they should make the decision and do it.

This is dangerous thinking.

All the uncertainty does nobody any favours. Especially at a time where Bitcoin is trying for mainstream adoption.

Says who? Bitcoin itslef is not designed to support massive adoption.

Others are doing doing the job of mainstream adoption much better. It's impossible to do when the sentiment is "the blockchain is broken".

From where I stand the blockchain works just fine.
But if you feel bad about it, you should sell.

[Eamorr]

This is dangerous thinking.

The devs have a mandate.

You can't have everyone having their little say on something so important.

[Pecunia non olet]

This is dangerous thinking.

The devs have a mandate.

You can't have everyone having their little say on something so important.

How is it so important? For whom? We have no evidence reaching the blocklimit would even result in any problems.


-making it inaccessible
-detaching from userbase
-alienating people
-bloat the chain and send security to the dogs
-and so on


you're going to loose marketcap one way or the other. You're effectively pushing little people out of the game. And you know what? Nobody cares because we can convert our Bitcoins to any other coin within seconds and already do. The last word will the market have.

[inBitweTrust]

How is it so important? For whom? We have no evidence reaching the blocklimit would even result in any problems.

If you are a business or a payment processor who depends upon securing your transactions and having certain procedures where you depend upon an average Poisson distribution of 5-20 minutes being the most likely time to expect a confirmation and all of a sudden certain spikes in transaction volumes delay those confirmations to over an hour or longer than both you and your customer will be negatively effected. Lack of Transaction availability can also spur a new economy of volatile transaction fees which grow and shrink dynamically in a relationship to scarcity. Not knowing the transaction fee at any given moment is not a good thing either(its bad enough we have to deal with volatility in the price of the asset alone)

Additionally, what isn't being focused upon is the need to have a certain percentage of transactions on the block-chain as a possible means of gradually supplanting block rewards as the primary solution for securing the network to transaction fees securing the network.

[Pecunia non olet]

How is it so important? For whom? We have no evidence reaching the blocklimit would even result in any problems.

If you are a business or a payment processor who depends upon securing your transactions and having certain procedures where you depend upon an average Poisson distribution of 5-20 minutes being the most likely time to expect a confirmation and all of a sudden certain spikes in transaction volumes delay those confirmations to over an hour or longer than both you and your customer will be negatively effected. Lack of Transaction availability can also spur a new economy of volatile transaction fees which grow and shrink dynamically in a relationship to scarcity. Not knowing the transaction fee at any given moment is not a good thing either(its bad enough we have to deal with volatility in the price of the asset alone)

Additionally, what isn't being focused upon is the need to have a certain percentage of transactions on the block-chain as a possible means of gradually supplanting block rewards as the primary solution for securing the network to transaction fees securing the network.

yes, bitcoin is slow. That's nothing new. Litecoin is faster.

Look at primecoin. Another fast chain people can use. Your argument is invalid.

This whole missle-crisis hardfork circus just alienates people. Gavincoin hardfork will just make sure it dies faster. Bitcoin people have grown so arrogant. You think it's a guarantee you'll be dominating all of payment with this coin - that's your arrogant basic assumption and it's wrong. Darling, nothing is guaranteed.

Bitcoin in fact has a lot of problems and many alts right now have better fundamentals than Bitcoin has. Bitcoin should focus on preserving its marketcap - but it fails with that task already. I don't see a need for it to scale because it looks like it is kind of abandoned right now by its formal userbase.

[inBitweTrust]

yes, bitcoin is slow. That's nothing new. Litecoin is faster.

Look at primecoin. Another fast chain people can use. Your argument is invalid.

Are you here to have a productive conversation about bitcoin or pump alts?

Are you indirectly suggesting we should raise TPS by reducing avg confirmation time to around ~2 minutes (dealing with the negative effects of
higher orphans)?

This of course would allow TPS to grow by 5 fold , instead 20 fold as the proposed hardforks attempts to accomplish.

Is this what you are suggesting, or should I sell all my BTC and buy your flavor of alt you are pumping?

[Pecunia non olet]

yes, bitcoin is slow. That's nothing new. Litecoin is faster.

Look at primecoin. Another fast chain people can use. Your argument is invalid.

Are you here to have a productive conversation about bitcoin or pump alts?

Are you indirectly suggesting we should raise TPS by reducing avg confirmation time to around ~2 minutes (dealing with the negative effects of
higher orphans)?

This of course would allow TPS to grow by 5 fold , instead 20 fold as the proposed hardforks attempts to accomplish.

Is this what you are suggesting, or should I sell all my BTC and buy your flavor of alt you are pumping?

i'm just here to tell you how alienated i am by this whole bitcoin-community and project right now.
I know right now there is only one option discussed. It's cooked up by Mr. Andresen and he wants his way like a little crybaby. No other solutions to the maybe-problem (no evidence it will be a problem) have been presented or discussed in depth. Nothing about this is academic or intelectual approach in any way.  
I will refuse to use Gavincoin - i don't have to use it. I'm alienated 100%.

[inBitweTrust]

i'm just here to tell you how alienated i am by this whole bitcoin-community and project right now.
I know right now there is only one option discussed. It's cooked up by Mr. Andresen and he wants his way like a little crybaby. No other solutions to the maybe-problem (no evidence it will be a problem) have been presented or discussed in depth. Nothing about this is academic or intelectual approach in any way.  
I will refuse to use Gavincoin - i don't have to use it. I'm alienated 100%.

We have been discussing many options for increasing tps over a year , perhaps you have been too busy complaining about bitcoin to pay attention , idk...

I would recommend you sell your bitcoins and buy your alts you were just pumping , because holding onto MPcoin won't be wise. At least with litecoin and peercoin you will lose your investments at a slower pace.

[fat buddah]

Has china been asked what they think about it?

[cozk]

Isnt the 1k GB per year blockchain size a HUGE issue here ?