Bitcoin 20MB Fork

[hdbuck]

'bitcoin-legacy'

I like the way you've subconsciously described "mpcoin" as 'legacy'. It tends to suggest old, outdated, obsolete, defunct etc... Bit of a negative word in my opinion.

Maybe your subconscious is telling you something?
Just sayin.

or we could also call gavincoin the bitcoin 2.0.. 

[brg444]

Fucking autocorrect.

There won't be any war.

Fact : Gavin will release Gavincoin
Fact : Mircea (and friends) will try to dump their Gavincoins and buy Mirceacoins

These facts need a percentage. How many people support Gavin? How many people support Mircea?

This is not a vote.

It is a show of strength, of power.

The amount of BTC they own is all that matters.

[hdbuck]

Fucking autocorrect.

There won't be any war.

Fact : Gavin will release Gavincoin
Fact : Mircea (and friends) will try to dump their Gavincoins and buy Mirceacoins

These facts need a percentage. How many people support Gavin? How many people support Mircea?

This is not a vote.

It is a show of strength, of power.

The amount of BTC they own is all that matters.

true true.

beware the slayers.

[R2D221]

Fucking autocorrect.

There won't be any war.

Fact : Gavin will release Gavincoin
Fact : Mircea (and friends) will try to dump their Gavincoins and buy Mirceacoins

These facts need a percentage. How many people support Gavin? How many people support Mircea?

This is not a vote.

It is a show of strength, of power.

The amount of BTC they own is all that matters.

I was not talking about votes. The analogy here is war. Then how many people will be fighting at each side? That's my question. If the difference is too big, then this doesn't make sense.

[Buffer Overflow]

'bitcoin-legacy'

I like the way you've subconsciously described "mpcoin" as 'legacy'. It tends to suggest old, outdated, obsolete, defunct etc... Bit of a negative word in my opinion.

Maybe your subconscious is telling you something?
Just sayin.

Bitcoin has an impressive 'legacy'.  It succeeded in achieving things that I always considered theoretically possible but not very likely, but it could easily tumble into the abyss.  As a citizen of the United States of America I am keenly aware of such tragedies.

I also own the domain name 'bitcoin-legacy.org' and will happily give it away with no strings attached to a number of the people I know to be associated with Blockstream if they can make use of it.  The same offer might be extended to others if I can achieve a similar level of confidence in them that the likes of Maxwell and Wuille have earned over the years.

I own the domain because the threat of a hard-fork and the subsequent nearly inevitable subversion of Bitcoin have been realistic and ongoing threats for a long time.

Sorry I got that around the wrong way.

"Bitcoin legacy" sounds positive.
"Legacy bitcoin" sounds negative.

They do to me anyway.

[brg444]

Fucking autocorrect.

There won't be any war.

Fact : Gavin will release Gavincoin
Fact : Mircea (and friends) will try to dump their Gavincoins and buy Mirceacoins

These facts need a percentage. How many people support Gavin? How many people support Mircea?

This is not a vote.

It is a show of strength, of power.

The amount of BTC they own is all that matters.

I was not talking about votes. The analogy here is war. Then how many people will be fighting at each side? That's my question. If the difference is too big, then this doesn't make sense.

It's not about how many people are fighting on each side but how much resources are available to them.

hint : MP&co have quite a lot.

[hdbuck]

Fucking autocorrect.

There won't be any war.

Fact : Gavin will release Gavincoin
Fact : Mircea (and friends) will try to dump their Gavincoins and buy Mirceacoins

These facts need a percentage. How many people support Gavin? How many people support Mircea?

This is not a vote.

It is a show of strength, of power.

The amount of BTC they own is all that matters.

I was not talking about votes. The analogy here is war. Then how many people will be fighting at each side? That's my question. If the difference is too big, then this doesn't make sense.

now this is quite subjective..

take the 'war' between BTC and FIAT for example.

bitcoiners are outnumbered yet they resist quite well the huge-evil-FED.

[tvbcof]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[tvbcof]

It's not about how many people are fighting on each side but how much resources are available to them.

hint : MP&co have quite a lot.

Pretty standard asymmetric warfare.  The probable asymmetries are particularly significant in this case which will make it very interesting to watch and even more interesting to participate in.

At the end of the day, the old Sun Tzu idea of 'knowing your enemy as you know yourself' is a good one.  Even better than usual due to the asymmetries and multitude of the different belligerents that will be involved.

[Buffer Overflow]

Doesn't matter anyway. I'm going to release 250KB coin and blow everyone out the water. If 1MB is better than 20MB, then logic says 250KB must be better than 1MB, right?

Brace yourself, 0.5tps here we come...

[DooMAD]

Fucking autocorrect.

There won't be any war.

Fact : Gavin will release Gavincoin
Fact : Mircea (and friends) will try to dump their Gavincoins and buy Mirceacoins

These facts need a percentage. How many people support Gavin? How many people support Mircea?

This is not a vote.

It is a show of strength, of power.

The amount of BTC they own is all that matters.

I was not talking about votes. The analogy here is war. Then how many people will be fighting at each side? That's my question. If the difference is too big, then this doesn't make sense.

It's not about how many people are fighting on each side but how much resources are available to them.

hint : MP&co have quite a lot.

That just means they have more to lose.  Hope they're prepared to risk it all when everyone else leaves them behind on their own.  

Assuming you're not deliberately trying to mislead people, stop and think about it just for a second.  There are companies out there like payment processors, merchants and web wallet companies who stand to make the most profit when a greater number of people use Bitcoin.  Why would any of those companies support a limited chain that will keep people's transactions queued up and unconfirmed?  They won't.  They'll support the fork that allows the greatest level of adoption.  That's Bitpay, Coinbase, Blockchain, all the exchanges that aren't mpex and any other big names you care to mention.  MP and his little fanclub of elitists can't even hope to keep up with that.  They can have all the resources in the world, but if the rest of us are on a different chain, it's not going to do them any good.  They can have fun trading MPcoin amongst themselves.  Bitcoin will carry on without them.

[The Bad Guy]

It would be nice if anyone of the professionals in Bitcoin world right here can explain to a Newbie what the block size does matter ? more transaction in one block or what ? even if that's the case I don't see what is it useful for to be honest

[traincarswreck]

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

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

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

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

The monetary supply of bitcoin is a 2d software version of the pyramids.  But it doesn't observably seem so on the surface until you apply the new Nashian/Szabonian economics through Adam Smith and on into our history. Since szabo bridged Twon and Software with a formula, you could then literally compare the bit to the (royal) cubit in some meaningful form and come up with the perfect parameter (which seemingly would likely match Gav's "intuition") for "block size".

Proof of work, consensus, transactions, contracts, fees (wages) RELIGION.

It's going to be long, and take a while, but we'll make some amazing.  connections, like the 4 color/map theory to the kula ring conjecture.  None of it could be put together before "block-chain" economics and the concept of "ideal money". The pyraminds no doubt have an effectively ideal printing scheme, a representation or symptom of a secure and stable economy. No doubt left behind for a new standard. Now we have reason to understand why we don't know how they were built.

Cliffs: securing this parameter will bring us into a new age

I'll write this all up into something intelligible and with "points"/citations.

[DooMAD]

It would be nice if anyone of the professionals in Bitcoin world right here can explain to a Newbie what the block size does matter ? more transaction in one block or what ? even if that's the case I don't see what is it useful for to be honest

Wouldn't call myself a professional, but basically, at the moment, the block size doesn't matter too much.  But if more people start to use Bitcoin in the future, we need a larger block size, or unconfirmed transactions will start to pile up.  If everyone in the world was using Bitcoin right now, only the people who paid the largest fees would get their transaction included in the next block and everyone else would be left in a massive queue and could potentially be waiting a very long time to send or receive their coins.  People would inevitably start to think of Bitcoin as being slow and expensive to use, so they'll start using something else instead.  That's not what the majority of us want.

[NewLiberty]

'bitcoin-legacy'

I like the way you've subconsciously described "mpcoin" as 'legacy'. It tends to suggest old, outdated, obsolete, defunct etc... Bit of a negative word in my opinion.

Maybe your subconscious is telling you something?
Just sayin.

or we could also call gavincoin the bitcoin 2.0.. 

You might be surprised to learn that we aren't even at 1.0 yet, we are still 0.x.
If you aren't thinking of it as beta, you probably can't imagine what the big leagues will look like.

[R2D221]

Doesn't matter anyway. I'm going to release 250KB coin and blow everyone out the water. If 1MB is better than 20MB, then logic says 250KB must be better than 1MB, right?

Brace yourself, 0.5tps here we come...

Ah, so it's like homeopathy. I should've known better.

[The Bad Guy]

It would be nice if anyone of the professionals in Bitcoin world right here can explain to a Newbie what the block size does matter ? more transaction in one block or what ? even if that's the case I don't see what is it useful for to be honest

Wouldn't call myself a professional, but basically, at the moment, the block size doesn't matter too much.  But if more people start to use Bitcoin in the future, we need a larger block size, or unconfirmed transactions will start to pile up.  If everyone in the world was using Bitcoin right now, only the people who paid the largest fees would get their transaction included in the next block and everyone else would be left in a massive queue and could potentially be waiting a very long time to send or receive their coins.  People would inevitably start to think of Bitcoin as being slow and expensive to use, so they'll start using something else instead.  That's not what the majority of us want.

Alright , I see now and it make sense to be honest and then Bitcoin won't be "Instant" anymore .
But there isn't that much of Bitcoin users so I don't think it does matter for the moment , I know that Bitcoin is an Open source project , but who really controls on the Block size ? anyone particular to do that ?

[Uncle Axetime]

https://getaddr.bitnodes.io/nodes/incentive/

look guise the decaying old nags at the phoundation will even let you join in a raffe for 10 dollars if you stay on the dark side and follow orders

remember not to diddle your version numbers:

Bitnodes uses Bitcoin protocol version 70001 (i.e. >= /Satoshi:0.8.x/), so nodes running an older protocol version will be skipped

[justusranvier]

Doesn't matter anyway. I'm going to release 250KB coin and blow everyone out the water. If 1MB is better than 20MB, then logic says 250KB must be better than 1MB, right?

Brace yourself, 0.5tps here we come...

Ah, so it's like homeopathy. I should've known better.

If fewer transactions is better than more transactions, the why allow transactions at all?

Just mine coins and let them sit in the same address forever, like Yap stones.

Bitcoin can just be a perfect store of value due to its inherent... um.... bitcoininess. No need to actually transact with it at all.

[traincarswreck]

Wouldn't call myself a professional, but basically, at the moment, the block size doesn't matter too much.  But if more people start to use Bitcoin in the future, we need a larger block size, or unconfirmed transactions will start to pile up.  If everyone in the world was using Bitcoin right now, only the people who paid the largest fees would get their transaction included in the next block and everyone else would be left in a massive queue and could potentially be waiting a very long time to send or receive their coins.  People would inevitably start to think of Bitcoin as being slow and expensive to use, so they'll start using something else instead.  That's not what the majority of us want.

bitcoin has multi dimensional explanations.  Another "view" of the importance, is that decentralization requires a Nash Equilibrium in order to secure its longevity.  What we are understanding is this is not a static process.  Kind of like stapling or nailing down the central piece and then the edge must be secured, and then further edges and so on.  So the parameter we discuss now, is basically a security leak in terms of creating a central point from which everything is measured from/secured against.