Bitcoin 20MB Fork

[onemorebtc]

I'll assume for the sake of discussion that it is necessary (or ultimately will be).

"I'll assume, for the purpose of discussing X, that X is already granted".

Seriously. What kind of braindamaged logic is this?

i still would like to hear when you think such a change is necessary.
you dont seem to be against any blocksize change as long as it is not needed: how do you define needed in this case?

I define "needed" as when MP says so.

Along those lines, I am against anything proposed by Gavin; even a cure for cancer.

danielpbarron: SetBestChain: 1 of last 100 blocks above version 2 << anyone else seeing this in their .bitcoin/debug.log ? does it have to do with 0.10 coming out?
punkman: blocks version 3 now
danielpbarron: well.. 1 in 100 at least
punkman: oh and they are already talking about version 4
danielpbarron: bu-but.. the forum poll said it had 60% support!? how can this 1% be?
asciilifeform: axe-time, sword-time, coming closer.
punkman: well v3 brings strict signature format, not such a bad thing
asciilifeform: punkman: not bad thing if -we- do it
asciilifeform: if phoundation does it - cure for cancer is bad thing.
asciilifeform: ipso facto.

sheep
what if mp someday decides that he want to short btc? think for yourself!

[1714807741]

1714807741

[1714807741]

1714807741

[1714807741]

1714807741

[1714807741]

1714807741

[1714807741]

1714807741

[Lauda]

i still would like to hear when you think such a change is necessary.
you dont seem to be against any blocksize change as long as it is not needed: how do you define needed in this case?

In his view, there is no definition of needed in this case. (hope that I'm not mistaken)

A max block size is needed because of the asymmetric incentive structure.
--snip--
So... assuming there is a problem, the current proposal is not the solution.

A) I didn't not say that it was not needed.
B) I said that (if I correctly understood him) for him there isn't a situation where a change of the limit is needed.


I've been waiting for this 'solution', instead of just the 'don't fork it' stance.

[DooMAD]

i still would like to hear when you think such a change is necessary.
you dont seem to be against any blocksize change as long as it is not needed: how do you define needed in this case?

In his view, there is no definition of needed in this case. (hope that I'm not mistaken)

A max block size is needed because of the asymmetric incentive structure.
--snip--
So... assuming there is a problem, the current proposal is not the solution.

A) I didn't not say that it was not needed.
B) I said that (if I correctly understood him) for him there isn't a situation where a change of the limit is needed.


I've been waiting for this 'solution', instead of just the 'don't fork it' stance.

The only solution they can come up with is sidechains, but those can be implemented when they're ready regardless of the outcome of the fork.  What can't happen without the fork, however, is increased adoption and scalability.  The only problem (if you can even call it a problem, since we're just going to end up ignoring them) is that the anti-fork crowd generally don't want increased adoption.  They want a tool for the elites, so they're never going to be reasoned with regarding "need" because they don't care about anyone's need but their own.  It's just another distraction to keep the thread moving and a desperate attempt to drum up support for their elitist agenda.


Reasons to oppose the fork:

• You're a millionaire elitist and you don't want "lesser" entities using "your" blockchain
• You've got your nose so far up MP's arse you can tell us what he had for breakfast the other day
• You're happy to jeopardise Bitcoin's reputation when it can't process everyone's transactions and a massive backlog piles up, making Bitcoin appear slow and unreliable
• You're making the only legitimate case I've heard so far in that one day in the very distant future, it *might* lead to centralisation if consumer hardware can't keep up with the requirements of running a full node

Reasons to support the fork:

• You want an open and scalable network that anyone can use
• You want a network that isn't going to fall over by hitting a pointless limit when more people start using it
• You think that every word out of MP's arrogant, egotistical blogs sounds like a horrible vision of an incredibly bleak future that no one in their right mind would want to be a part of
• You don't want to get left behind when the fork goes ahead, because it has enough support and it will go ahead with or without you

[danielpbarron]

You've got your nose so far up MP's arse you can tell us what he had for breakfast the other day

Sorry I can't help myself; this is just too perfect.

See: this, this, this, and this.

If you don't have any Trilema credits, save your weekly free clicks for the first two links.

[Cryddit]

I think sidechains as such are doomed to fail because I haven't yet seen a plausible security proposal -- that is, we need to make mining the side chains more profitable than attacking them.  :-/

On the other hand, side chains are just one implementation of a thing that is definitely NOT doomed to fail -- that is to say, blockchain pruning.  We can find a way to reduce the size of the required working set to manageable levels without going to side chains.

[cinnamon_carter]

I may out of my league on this thread ...but at least my post is on topic.....here it goes....

(basically a more detailed justification on my short post several pages ago)

I am personally against this fork (that looks like it is going to happen regardless)  since it is not just about going to 20 mb blocks but the code that is going to ramp the block size up bigger and bigger over time , even by 2020 looking at 100 mb and it goes up and up from there , actually looking at the spread sheet linked here https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1CuOEM9uwO5w-RwWGCCZpVGVFwhHHHegxJZqTP5KyapI/edit?pli=1#gid=0 from Gavins blog eventually a couple dozen blocks are going to be the size of what the blockchain was two years ago.   

(this is code from Gavins blog)

double_epoch = 6*24*365*2 = 105120 (doublings, remainder) = divmod(blocknumber-336861, double_epoch) if doublings >= 10 : (doublings, remainder) = (10, 0) interpolate = floor ((2^24 << doublings) * remainder / double_epoch) max_block_size = (2^24 << doublings) + interpolate

This is a very aggressive (in my opinion) approach to increase the tx/sec limit a.k.a. scalability issues that are on the horizon.

I cannot deny it is a solution that can place bitcoin on a level to 'scale' as big as it needs to......

But does it need to scale that big ? That quickly ? 

My concern is centralization.  I can still run a node now but I won't be able to 5 years from now and most other people won't be able to either.

Who will run the nodes ?  The storage, bandwidth and ability for the blocks to propagate...

Here is a pdf paper linked about Propagation in the Bitcoin Network by Christian Decker and Roger Wattenhofer which discusses possible 'dangers' of larger blocks. http://www.tik.ee.ethz.ch/file/49318d3f56c1d525aabf7fda78b23fc0/P2P2013_041.pdf


I suposse it is possible that just because the max block size is going to be much larger that it is no guarantee that all or even some of the blocks will be much larger but it is certainly an invitation and opportunity for the blockchain to 'bloat'.

To conclude my concerns are

1) Centralizatoin (and literally it may become 'impossible' for a normal person to run a node)
2) Weaknesses to security as block size increases (as discussed by others and in the pdf linked above)
3) I accept eventually bitcoin may need to increase block size but this prosed solution seems quite radical to me.  So why do it ?

Would a more conservative approach not be better ?  Why does it have to be done 'right now' and 'this way' ?

This is an attempt to bring bitcoin to the world, why not let the world come closer to bitcoin ?

[Cryddit]

I may out of my league on this thread ...but at least my post is on topic.....here it goes....

(basically a more detailed justification on my short post several pages ago)

I am personally against this fork (that looks like it is going to happen regardless)  since it is not just about going to 20 mb blocks but the code that is going to ramp the block size up bigger and bigger over time ...  eventually a couple dozen blocks are going to be the size of what the blockchain was two years ago.   

Here is the basic scenario as I see it (I'm for the fork FWIW).

If there is traffic to fill up blocks to that size, and the blocks can grow to that size, the blocks grow to that size and the system continues to function. 

If there is traffic to fill up blocks to that size, and the blocks cannot grow to that size, then the system fails.

If there is not traffic to fill up blocks to that size, and the blocks can grow to that size, the blocks grow up to the size of the traffic it takes to fill them, and the system continues to function.   A very rare block mined by a troll might grow to that size, but expect less than five of those a year.

If there is not traffic to fill up blocks to that size, and the blocks cannot grow to that size, the blocks grow to the size of the traffic it takes to fill them, and the system continues to function.

Do we fundamentally disagree on how often we should expect blocks to be mined by trolls?  'Cause I don't see anybody else risking his return on investment in hashing power by growing blocks needlessly without having legitimate transactions to fill them.

[danielpbarron]

If there is traffic to fill up blocks to that size, and the blocks can grow to that size, the blocks grow to that size and the system continues to function.

False. If we let them, the spammers will come.

If there is traffic to fill up blocks to that size, and the blocks cannot grow to that size, then the system fails.

False. Bitcoin works fine as the sound foundation to all other systems just fine, whether the blocks are full or empty.

If there is not traffic to fill up blocks to that size, and the blocks can grow to that size, the blocks grow up to the size of the traffic it takes to fill them, and the system continues to function.   A very rare block mined by a troll might grow to that size, but expect less than five of those a year.

False. See my first refutation, and go screw yourself USG muppet.

If there is not traffic to fill up blocks to that size, and the blocks cannot grow to that size, the blocks grow to the size of the traffic it takes to fill them, and the system continues to function.

Doesn't even make sense. Not sure if false or not.

Do we fundamentally disagree on how often we should expect blocks to be mined by trolls?  'Cause I don't see anybody else risking his return on investment in hashing power by growing blocks needlessly without having legitimate transactions to fill them.

YES. FOR THE THIRD TIME. I FUNDAMENTALLY DISAGREE WITH OBVIOUS UNSAVORY GARNISH. GO AWAY.

Whatever a troll is, that isn't gonna be the problem. The USG, and just so we're clear what that acronym means, I'm talking about the United States Government, wants nothing more than to kill bitcoin. Their cash cow is about to die, and bitcoin is the bullet. If you give them enough rope, they will certainly get to hanging. And by more rope, I mean bigger blocks. The miners DGAF. Mining is a break even venture. They aren't doing it for "the community." They aren't doing it because it's the hipsterish thing to do. They are doing it because there's a little bit of profit to be made. If someone wants to jam blocks full of crud, and is willing to pay a little fee to do it, the miners will gladly include it. So stop vomiting your "few trolls" nonsense. You look like such a damn fool, I am convinced you are on lizard hitler's payroll.

[theskillzdatklls]

is there an estimated time for the 20mb thing to roll out?

[danielpbarron]

is there an estimated time for the 20mb thing to roll out?

Never. Seriously go back and read the thread or something. Start here.

[RoadStress]

Bitcoin isn't for everybody.

Who says so? You? Why? Bitcoin IS for everybody, but we just need to agree on how it will be done. (everyone directly on the blockchain or via some other way like sidechains). If you state that "Bitcoin isn't for everybody" I can easily state that "Bitcoin isn't for you" because I want it so.

[danielpbarron]

Bitcoin isn't for everybody.

Who says so? You? Why? Bitcoin IS for everybody, but we just need to agree on how it will be done. (everyone directly on the blockchain or via some other way like sidechains). If you state that "Bitcoin isn't for everybody" I can easily state that "Bitcoin isn't for you" because I want it so.

You can state anything you want -- sure. Does this usually work for you? If so, why are you wasting time on this forum? You could be wishing golden toilets and perpetual motion machines into existence.

Notice this: the author of that particular quote did not preface it with "I wish." The statement is more akin to observing the effects of gravity. Not that everybody won't be affected by bitcoin; they will. It's just not for them. Take bureaucrats, for example. Bitcoin is not for them any more than the noose is for the condemned.

mircea_popescu: what was the hands-down, no question asked, no doubt possible dominant party and c ultural force of the 1930s ?
mircea_popescu: anihilated by 1960.
mircea_popescu: completely gone by 1990.
mircea_popescu: such success...
mircea_popescu: that the socialists are doing the same thing...
mircea_popescu: so what, anihilated by 2020, completely gone by 2050, hopefully we'll be smarter than to do it over.
mircea_popescu: (but to anyone not quite seeing the world for what it is : yes we are at war, and yes the year is about 1944, and yes the fucking nazis are running the fucking concentration camps and invaded russia and so on and so forth. you had no idera about it, but similarly you had no idea about it in 1944. the only reason this is being an issue is because the introduction of the bitcoin tank/bomber/submarine is massively turning
mircea_popescu:  the tide, and suddenly all sorts of disparate and previously doomed forces are now converging.
mircea_popescu: you wouldn't have known there's such a thing as "french partisans" if there wasn't a 1945, either)
mircea_popescu: so no, when i'm talking about hanging each and every us bureaucrat, through a war crimes court, within our lifetime i am not being in any sense and to any degree metaphorical.

[RoadStress]

Bitcoin isn't for everybody.

Who says so? You? Why? Bitcoin IS for everybody, but we just need to agree on how it will be done. (everyone directly on the blockchain or via some other way like sidechains). If you state that "Bitcoin isn't for everybody" I can easily state that "Bitcoin isn't for you" because I want it so.

You can state anything you want -- sure. Does this usually work for you? If so, why are you wasting time on this forum? You could be wishing golden toilets and perpetual motion machines into existence.

I can say the same thing about you and we are in a dead end. You brought nothing new to the topic except citing someone who wants to impose his ways in a consensus network. I am sure that you and his retardness MP will not sense the absurdity of this desire.

[theskillzdatklls]

is there an estimated time for the 20mb thing to roll out?

Never. Seriously go back and read the thread or something. Start here.

thats just like your opinion, man.

[Lauda]

Bitcoin isn't for everybody.

Who says so? You? Why? Bitcoin IS for everybody, but we just need to agree on how it will be done. (everyone directly on the blockchain or via some other way like sidechains). If you state that "Bitcoin isn't for everybody" I can easily state that "Bitcoin isn't for you" because I want it so.

It just kinda can't be for everyone, because of the way that people are. The majority are sheep and/or dogmatics. Often, you can't even reason with them.                                                                                                     The idea of Bitcoin is about 100 quadrillion light years away from their 'in the box' thinking style. Also I often get the question: 'why should I, there is already fiat?'...


Then again, what does the 'Bitcoin isn't for everybody' discussion have to do with the fork?

[R2D221]

Bitcoin isn't for everybody.

Who says so? You? Why? Bitcoin IS for everybody, but we just need to agree on how it will be done. (everyone directly on the blockchain or via some other way like sidechains). If you state that "Bitcoin isn't for everybody" I can easily state that "Bitcoin isn't for you" because I want it so.

This is a wrong premise. It just kinda can't be for everyone, because of the way that people are. The majority are sheep and/or dogmatics. Often, you can't even reason with them.                                                 The idea of Bitcoin is about 100 quadrillion light years away from their 'in the box' thinking style. Also I often get the question: 'why should I, there is already fiat?'...

There are two different meanings of “for everyone”. One of them is: can everyone use it? And the other: is everyone accepting to use it?

I believe we must make the answer to the first question yes even if not everyone is accepting it right now. I really see no point in making it an elitist system when only a few can use Bitcoin.

[solex]

There are two different meanings of “for everyone”. One of them is: can everyone use it? And the other: is everyone accepting to use it?

I believe we must make the answer to the first question yes even if not everyone is accepting it right now. I really see no point in making it an elitist system when only a few can use Bitcoin.

100% agree.
Since we all know that Bitcoin is superior to fiat, where the public are stealth-taxed by never-ending CB inflation targeting, then this is the morally correct action.

[traincarswreck]

this is the morally correct action.

morals aren't subjective.

[Eamorr]

Just popped in here to see if everything has been sorted out yet.

I see more of the same.

And talk about morals?!

[traincarswreck]

Ideally

He said it!

It seems we have a complex decision to be made.