Bitcoin Forum
March 28, 2020, 09:48:37 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.19.0.1 [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 ... 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 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)
traincarswreck
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476
Merit: 250


View Profile
February 17, 2015, 04:25:10 AM
 #1601

The things is, sirs (doesn't seems to be otherwise, pissing etc), if we happen to already be in a Nash Equilibrium, then there can be NO consensus for change. Before we go back to and continue debating, we should check to see, if any of the significant parties can change their strategies and gain. (otherwise we might be looking at a whole different kind of "consensus")
AWARD-WINNING
CRYPTO CASINO
ASKGAMBLERS
PLAYERS CHOICE 2019
PROUD
PARTNER OF
1500+
GAMES
2 MIN
CASH-OUTS
24/7
SUPPORT
100s OF
FREE SPINS
PLAY NOW
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
danielpbarron
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 213
Merit: 100


Daniel P. Barron


View Profile WWW
February 17, 2015, 04:57:12 AM
 #1602

it would be easier for them by making a reward program where mp sends coins to any coinbase (miner-address) which does not advertise it'll make bigger blocks.

thats the best way i can imagine to prevent a fork - not that i want them to do that...
Loss of faith in Bitcoin would make make the bribes less and less due to the law of diminishing returns until it lost it's network effect. Really they have no chance and it will be amusing to see just how desperate they become to use this FUD tactic. Their next tactic will be to promote what they consider a superior altcoin. Watch MPs Trilemma blog for this in the near future.

You mean like this reward program? Again, why would those who oppose a fork go ahead and make a fork? That's like drinking for sobriety or screwing for.. well you get it.

Whatever you aren't going to seriously consider my argument; this is for everyone else that isn't on the USG payroll. Look at the language used here in the quoted text above. This is what a muppet sounds like. They don't have any opinions that are their own; they have a list of buzzwords and a periodic memo to regurgitate. Also note that the muppets group together and spam a thread to bury the opposing view. They don't add anything new; they repeat the same nonsensical lines. If you check my post history, you'll see that my content is always unique, and always relevant to its context. If you check their history, you'll see that it is repetitive and out of context.

See this post for more details on the topic of content farms.

Here is an example of an App Store review farm. This is not fiction. It takes place anywhere there is financial incentive to game a "democratic" system.

Marriage is a permanent bond (or should be) between a man and a woman. Scripture reveals a man has the freedom to have this marriage bond with more than one woman, if he so desires. But, anything beyond this is a perversion. -- Darwin Fish
traincarswreck
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476
Merit: 250


View Profile
February 17, 2015, 07:33:26 AM
 #1603

Here is the thing. This "situation" is in fact well addressed in the lecture "ideal money" especially in relation to a very special future decision to be made.  I'd quote the relevant parts but we aren't reading them anyways. We are trying to solve bitcoin in a vacuum, without the overall global economic considerations which were purposefully outlined over 20 years of lectures in Ideal Money.  We have a cognitive bias vs money so this is difficult to hear.

You are in a Nash Equilibrium, this is clear, and unless of course someone can identify how they might gain by changing their own strategy.  This means that there can be no consensus to change block size. But it means some other very special things as well.

The thesis of ideal money, is that bitcoin could arise very auspiciously yet without most people understanding what it is or what its purpose is.  At a certain point (ie exchanges are in Nash Eq), it would then be up to the citizens to flip the switch.  Ideal Money is about the need for a universal gold, in which every country in the world can peg their currencies to without there being any possible pressure on the actually pegged gold itself (whether political or geographical or discovery of more gold etc.).

 
We all want bitcoin to be an amazing currency system that takes the places of the current one.  But we must realize as quick as possible that this is not the way this scenario can possibly play out.  He has you.  I read many different papers by Nash.  One of the ways to solve cooperative games is to reduce them to there non-cooperative equivalent and find the Nash Equilibrium.

It seems none of you are skilled in game theory enough to recognize this.  Debate cannot solve this game.  Debate and conflict is exactly what holds this entire problem together, and no one expects us to solve this in the way most are looking for. But this is not to no avail.  Bitcoin, our global economy, the currency wars, and specifically price (we are all greedy right?) rests not at all on whether we make this consensus or that...but rather like stated in the lecture Ideal Money many times in many ways...the future quality of a currency rides exactly on the psychological view of the stability.

You CANNOT change bitcoin, but you can come to the consensus that it will NEVER be changed, which is obvious fact...and this my friends, is a consensus, and we are only in fact looking for a consensus. Bitcoin will take over the USD/Gold (government bond) de facto standard overnight upon our consensus/realization of this in this thread. This is the core of the decision, and it obviously cannot involve any of the bitcoin elite that actually already understood this problem/paradox/paradigm.

I just wanted to show that some more countries have in fact joined in, yesterday on the left, and today on the right, which makes more sense and is helpful (malta, panama are likely poker related ;p), unfortunately Greece has not joined us as they are likely preoccupied:



Lastly in case you are not convinced, I must point out (and btw I'm getting visits from TOR) that if "Ideal Money" in regards to bitcoin requires a consensus for change, all of the governments and intelligence agencies will NOT allow such change to happen (obviously we do not have the "economic" power to combat this).  We have arrived sirs/madames, the world awaits our consensus not on "debate", but rather on the realization we are in fact "stuck" in a Nash Equilibrium.

NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1204
Merit: 1001


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
February 17, 2015, 08:12:24 AM
 #1604

The difference is most everything.  Consensus is agreement.  Usually there isn't any debating at that point.
If it comes to a vote, or a battle, then it isn't a consensus.

Consensus is preferred, but it is already clear that certain individuals are unwilling to compromise no matter what, so ultimately it will
never be reached between the whole bitcoin community. Ultimately, 95% consensus will be reached to make this happen. How quickly will the remaining 5% upgrade when the hardfork initiates will also be interesting to watch. My guess is at least 1% will fail to upgrade due to be stubborn or oblivious.

It would be wise for those being left behind to start getting ready to release their own hard fork to solve some serious concerns when they control less than 5% hashing power overnight on a forked coin. They should create their own github and start marketing it to users and miners to solve this serious problem which will make their currency unusable overnight unless they adjust difficulty retarget manually and possibly implement more checkpoints.

It will be interesting to see if their coin survives and for how long? Most miners and pools would be unlikely to attack their coin but with such a small hash rate one group may attempt a 51% attack out of spite, curiosity, or for profit.

Bitcoin has always remained interesting to say the least. Smiley

It is entirely possible that there is more than one consensus, which are not in agreement with each other.  There is one consensus per chain.  All on that chain are in agreement that it is the longest for that chain.

So for the 'best' solution is still a pretty bad one.  Its more of a software fix than a protocol fix.  If enough adoption occurs, and transaction volumes continue to grow, such that lots of people think that we HAVE to DO SOMETHING or else really bad things happen, and the crisis that we manufacture for ourselves convinces us that a bad solution is better than those really bad things...  Then we get forked.

I'm still holding hope for a better proposal that isn't too complex.

FREE MONEY1 Bitcoin for Silver and Gold NewLibertyDollar.com and now BITCOIN SPECIE (silver 1 ozt) shows value by QR
Bulk premiums as low as .0012 BTC "BETTER, MORE COLLECTIBLE, AND CHEAPER THAN SILVER EAGLES" 1Free of Government
inBitweTrust
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 658
Merit: 500



View Profile
February 17, 2015, 12:33:20 PM
Last edit: February 17, 2015, 12:48:08 PM by inBitweTrust
 #1605

I'm still holding hope for a better proposal that isn't too complex.

Agreed, and thus this conversation. There is a time limit on this proposal and it isn't manufactured via our own sense of panic but by the fact that the combination in merchant adoption and halvening in 2016 will likely increase transactions and it may happen within a very short period of time thus a dynamic solution may be needed to prevent an additional last minute hard fork. The time limit IMHO is 2015 for the hardfork , and preferably by the second quarter. We also need to start preparing for the transition where we pay for security (miners ) with transaction fees vs block rewards as the reward continues to drop. Some suggest they would rather increase fees to ridiculous amount on par with w/u and moneygram but I would be more comfortable taking the approach of collecting larger amounts of smaller fees to have a competitive advantage with fiat and other alts.

A dynamic proposal that allows the "anti-spam" limit to increase and decrease may allow us to continue to search for other solutions while we have the backstop in place so we don't hit a crisis may be a good idea.

NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1204
Merit: 1001


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
February 17, 2015, 02:05:21 PM
 #1606

I'm still holding hope for a better proposal that isn't too complex.
A dynamic proposal that allows the "anti-spam" limit to increase and decrease may allow us to continue to search for other solutions while we have the backstop in place so we don't hit a crisis may be a good idea.

This is where my conversation with Gavin fell apart.  He was not able to acknowledge the concept of a too-high limit.  His reasoning was that since the limit was only one-sided (blocks with size above it are prevented) that it couldn't be too high.

You, I and others, can see the fallacy of this in a moment, but he seems willing to ignore it.  I have good confidence in his programming.  I like the way he codes, it is tight and clean.  He is a great software engineer, and he has tested the software so that it works with large blocks.
As a protocol engineer he may be able to improve.  He has set himself up as the curator of ideas, and decides which have merit and which do not.  He was wise enough to revise this aspect of his proposal for the protocol once already, so he can hear some criticisms and respond.
This is why I hold some hope for him yet and have not given up on him.

FREE MONEY1 Bitcoin for Silver and Gold NewLibertyDollar.com and now BITCOIN SPECIE (silver 1 ozt) shows value by QR
Bulk premiums as low as .0012 BTC "BETTER, MORE COLLECTIBLE, AND CHEAPER THAN SILVER EAGLES" 1Free of Government
cbeast
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1736
Merit: 1002

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
February 17, 2015, 02:20:27 PM
 #1607

I'm still holding hope for a better proposal that isn't too complex.
A dynamic proposal that allows the "anti-spam" limit to increase and decrease may allow us to continue to search for other solutions while we have the backstop in place so we don't hit a crisis may be a good idea.

This is where my conversation with Gavin fell apart.
Translation: This is where I stopped thinking.

 He was not able to acknowledge the concept of a too-high limit.  His reasoning was that since the limit was only one-sided (blocks with size above it are prevented) that it couldn't be too high.
It's one-sided because it's chosen by the miner that builds the block. It's the miner that chooses how big the bloc will be. That's partly why there have been empty blocks with no new transactions included.


You, I and others, can see the fallacy of this in a moment, but he seems willing to ignore it.  
We're mostly ignoring you. The fallacy is yours. Own it.

I have good confidence in his programming.  I like the way he codes, it is tight and clean.  He is a great software engineer, and he has tested the software so that it works with large blocks.
As a protocol engineer he may be able to improve.  He has set himself up as the curator of ideas, and decides which have merit and which do not.  He was wise enough to revise this aspect of his proposal for the protocol once already, so he can hear some criticisms and respond.
This is why I hold some hope for him yet and have not given up on him.
The ever popular concern troll.

Any significantly advanced cryptocurrency is indistinguishable from Ponzi Tulips.
sardokan
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1414
Merit: 1003



View Profile
February 17, 2015, 02:31:55 PM
 #1608

Is there anyone here, who has already chosen their strategy (to which truly we all have in some form), that might be able to deviate and gain?  

The only strategy for me is to keep coins in cold storage (with keys under my exclusive control), so in any case, I can observe whats going on without risking to have coins that are not valid on both chains.

Keep advocating for maybe a compromise, 5MB STATIC limit for me is fine (and would be maybe a little better cap to handle some transactions for base money of the futur while staying flexible and easier to defend in hard cases than something heavier), and that we use all the time we have to fix the issue, because something better might be found tomorrow. My gain would be flexibility.

But I don't believe in a solution that would grow so much in size and ressources to stay independent of the global system

It's features are resilience, soverainty, independance. Not gigachain for connected tamagoshi.
inBitweTrust
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 658
Merit: 500



View Profile
February 17, 2015, 02:33:19 PM
Last edit: February 17, 2015, 02:45:24 PM by inBitweTrust
 #1609


This is where my conversation with Gavin fell apart.  He was not able to acknowledge the concept of a too-high limit.  His reasoning was that since the limit was only one-sided (blocks with size above it are prevented) that it couldn't be too high.


If the miners still control which transactions to include in blocks than ultimately they decide upon the limit. Is your concern more to deal with the miners and you prefer the developers to impose restrictions upon the market to remove the ability for miners to process more transactions?

Can anyone direct me to the BIP for the gigablockchain proposal ?

All I can find is a blog post from one developer saying he made tests with 20 MB blocks on one computer on the testnet and that it was fine, plus a spreadsheet showing that if one multiplies the previous line by two the result is that you can quickly have a cell that contains an integer greater than 1E9.

Anyone ?

https://github.com/bitcoin/bips

There isn't one and it is clear that Gavin is still at the stage of floating around ideas carefully to test assumptions, hear criticism, listen to other suggestions, and study his proposal before introducing a formal BIP.

Another reason I am liking a dynamic approach more than a static one now is this has been discussed Ad nauseum over years already. Going through a hard fork seems to be painfully tedious and we better just make it the right combination of flexible and simple so we don't have to revisit this in a year.

sardokan
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1414
Merit: 1003



View Profile
February 17, 2015, 03:25:14 PM
 #1610

If there is no upper limit, any miner founding blocks from time to time can bloat the chain, so you can bloat the network with not so much hashrate? You will pile some more weight on it each time you found a block you will be abble to add 20MB for now and x1.4 more each years

miners as anti spam works well unless it's miners that spam, but this spam would be stopped by the limit...
inBitweTrust
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 658
Merit: 500



View Profile
February 17, 2015, 03:56:04 PM
 #1611

If there is no upper limit, any miner founding blocks from time to time can bloat the chain, so you can bloat the network with not so much hashrate? You will pile some more weight on it each time you found a block you will be abble to add 20MB for now and x1.4 more each years

miners as anti spam works well unless it's miners that spam, but this spam would be stopped by the limit...

This is somewhat true except, the spam would be inconsequential unless you had a large amount of hashrate so really isn't that big of a concern but one could impose a minimum tx fee to discourage this attack.

NxtChg
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 840
Merit: 1000


Simcoin Developer


View Profile WWW
February 17, 2015, 03:57:28 PM
 #1612

If the miners still control which transactions to include in blocks than ultimately they decide upon the limit. Is your concern more to deal with the miners and you prefer the developers to impose restrictions upon the market to remove the ability for miners to process more transactions?

The problem here is that Bitcoin is designed in such a way that there is no counterparty to miners when it comes to transmission and storage costs, so it seems impossible to add a truly free-market price discovery mechanism.

So there are 2 other options: impose a hard limit by protocol rules or change the rules to alter financial incentives somehow so it's not profitable for miners to generate big blocks.

This could be done if the prices remained stable (see my previous idea, for example), but unfortunately Bitcoin price relative to everything else is externality, which cannot be accounted for by the protocol rules alone. And since no free-market solution seems to be available, the problem seems to be impossible to solve efficiently right now.

Increasing the block limit is simply kicking the can down the road and buying some time to figure out what to do.

(I am for it, by the way).

Simcoin: https://simtalk.org:444/ | The Simplest Bitcoin Wallet: https://tsbw.io/ | Coinmix: https://coinmix.to | Tippr stats: https://tsbw.io/tippr/
--
About smaragda and his lies: https://medium.com/@nxtchg/about-smaragda-and-his-lies-c376e4694de9
inBitweTrust
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 658
Merit: 500



View Profile
February 17, 2015, 04:03:28 PM
 #1613

So there are 2 other options: impose a hard limit by protocol rules or change the rules to alter financial incentives somehow so it's not profitable for miners to generate big blocks.

There are network considerations which balance miners desire to either spam or take in more tx fees and discourage them from generating big blocks due to the risk of generating orphans.

Are your concerns more to do with the future when block reward becomes an insignificant incentive compared to tx fees?

NxtChg
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 840
Merit: 1000


Simcoin Developer


View Profile WWW
February 17, 2015, 04:17:10 PM
 #1614

Are your concerns more to do with the future when block reward becomes an insignificant incentive compared to tx fees?

Yep. But it's also not clear what will happen if there's 20 MB space available and there's enough "dust" transactions to fill it.

Would they? Why not? More money, might outweigh the costs for miners if fee/byte is high enough.

But everybody else won't get that "fee/byte" profit, so they will "pick up the tab" in a sense.

Simcoin: https://simtalk.org:444/ | The Simplest Bitcoin Wallet: https://tsbw.io/ | Coinmix: https://coinmix.to | Tippr stats: https://tsbw.io/tippr/
--
About smaragda and his lies: https://medium.com/@nxtchg/about-smaragda-and-his-lies-c376e4694de9
sardokan
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1414
Merit: 1003



View Profile
February 17, 2015, 04:38:03 PM
 #1615

If there is no upper limit, any miner founding blocks from time to time can bloat the chain, so you can bloat the network with not so much hashrate? You will pile some more weight on it each time you found a block you will be abble to add 20MB for now and x1.4 more each years

miners as anti spam works well unless it's miners that spam, but this spam would be stopped by the limit...

This is somewhat true except, the spam would be inconsequential unless you had a large amount of hashrate so really isn't that big of a concern but one could impose a minimum tx fee to discourage this attack.

How one would impose a fee where it's the attaquer that will mine the block ?

Let's think, I have X% of hashrate (it's goldfinger attack, I'm here to attack just to hit the system, not to profit directly)

I will find X% of blocks (that are today around 333KB) and replace all of them with 20MB blocks)

A little % of hashrate will cause a big % of blockchain space usage increase...
inBitweTrust
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 658
Merit: 500



View Profile
February 17, 2015, 04:57:11 PM
 #1616

How one would impose a fee where it's the attaquer that will mine the block ?

Let's think, I have X% of hashrate (it's goldfinger attack, I'm here to attack just to hit the system, not to profit directly)

I will find X% of blocks (that are today around 333KB) and replace all of them with 20MB blocks)

A little % of hashrate will cause a big % of blockchain space usage increase...

True, but this could also easily be identified and prevented after the fact where minimal damage was created unless the attacker had a bulk of the hash rate and than they may as well perform a 51% attack.

Lets discuss a possible scenario:

Attacker invests in 10 million dollars (at least) to control 5% of the total hashrate and than proceeds to fill up an average of 7 blocks a day to 20 MB where the average is 1MB in said example creating an extra 133MB a day in extra bloat on the blockchain, 931MB a week,. The attack would be identified fairly quickly(at most in one week) and the wild investment to simply bloat the blockchain would only add less than 1GB of bloat, hardly a concern for such an unusual attack.

The larger concern would be if 2 to 4 of the largest mining pools were infiltrated or compromised but in such scenarios bloat would be the least of our problems and the solutions to protect against this weakness is a whole other conversation which IMHO is much more important. We essentially have a 4 of 7 mining pool multisig protecting our network right now which is far more frightening than the concerns raised in this thread.

danielpbarron
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 213
Merit: 100


Daniel P. Barron


View Profile WWW
February 17, 2015, 05:25:07 PM
 #1617

Keep advocating for maybe a compromise, 5MB STATIC limit for me is fine

Perhaps you need to go back and read this:

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.



If there is no upper limit, any miner founding blocks from time to time can bloat the chain, so you can bloat the network with not so much hashrate? You will pile some more weight on it each time you found a block you will be abble to add 20MB for now and x1.4 more each years

miners as anti spam works well unless it's miners that spam, but this spam would be stopped by the limit...

This is somewhat true except, the spam would be inconsequential unless you had a large amount of hashrate so really isn't that big of a concern but one could impose a minimum tx fee to discourage this attack.

Nope.

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 :

Quote
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.

Marriage is a permanent bond (or should be) between a man and a woman. Scripture reveals a man has the freedom to have this marriage bond with more than one woman, if he so desires. But, anything beyond this is a perversion. -- Darwin Fish
sed
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


View Profile
February 17, 2015, 05:57:29 PM
 #1618

I wish I knew were to look for an alternative discussion thread on this topic.  This one is too long and flamey, imo.  I read the original blogposts, but I haven't seen any blogposts since.
danielpbarron
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 213
Merit: 100


Daniel P. Barron


View Profile WWW
February 17, 2015, 06:44:24 PM
 #1619

I wish I knew were to look for an alternative discussion thread on this topic.  This one is too long and flamey, imo.  I read the original blogposts, but I haven't seen any blogposts since.

The discussion is over. There will be no hard-fork. This thread serves only to create the illusion that the matter is unresolved.

Marriage is a permanent bond (or should be) between a man and a woman. Scripture reveals a man has the freedom to have this marriage bond with more than one woman, if he so desires. But, anything beyond this is a perversion. -- Darwin Fish
Gavin Andresen
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652
Merit: 1027


Chief Scientist


View Profile WWW
February 17, 2015, 06:50:50 PM
 #1620

This is where my conversation with Gavin fell apart.  He was not able to acknowledge the concept of a too-high limit.  His reasoning was that since the limit was only one-sided (blocks with size above it are prevented) that it couldn't be too high.

Huh what?

I am not proposing infinitely sized blocks, so I obviously acknowledge the concept of a too-high limit as being plausible.

If you want to continue the conversation, please be very explicit about what problem you think needs solving, and how whatever solution you're proposing solves that problem.

We might agree or disagree on both of those points, but we won't have a productive conversation if you can't say what problem you are trying to solve.

To summarize my position: I see one big problem that need solving:

Supporting lots (millions, eventually billions) of people transacting in Bitcoin.
  Ideally at as low a cost as possible, as secure as possible, and in the most decentralized and censorship-resistant way possible.

It is hard to get consensus on HOW to solve that problem, because no solution is obviously lowest cost, most secure, and most decentralized all at the same time, and different people assign different weights to the importance of those three things.

My bias is to "get big fast" -- I think the only way Bitcoin thrives is for lots of people to use it and to be happy using it. If it is a tiny little niche thing then it is much easier for politicians or banks to smother it, paint it as "criminal money", etc. They probably can't kill it, but they sure could make life miserable enough to slow down adoption by a decade or three.

"Get big fast" has been the strategy for a few years now, ever since the project became too famous to fly under the radar of regulators or the mainstream press.

The simplest path to "get big fast" is allowing the chain to grow. All the other solutions take longer or compromise decentralization (e.g. off-chain transactions require one or more semi-trusted entities to validate those off-chain transactions). I'm listening very carefully to anybody who argues that a bigger chain will compromise security, and those concerns are why I am NOT proposing an infinite maximum block size.

There is rough consensus that the max block size must increase. I don't think there is consensus yet on exactly HOW or WHEN.

How often do you get the chance to work on a potentially world-changing project?
Pages: « 1 ... 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 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!