Bitcoin 20MB Fork

[iCEBREAKER]

most forum members against the 20mb fork are associated with Monero.

Where is the proof for your claim?

Neither Theymos nor tvbcof nor NewLibery nor sardokan nor davout nor Pete Dushenski are "associated with Monero."

Monero Maximalists should be happy about the Great 20MB Schism, as Monero and other alts could benefit greatly from the fallout of a Bitcoin Civil War.

I hold both and wish to avoid this particular drama, however amazingly entertaining it promises to be.   

But Gavin.gov and the other BTC.mil spooks seem to be going all in with their efforts to Embrace/Extend/Extinguish our little experiment.

So we're in for another enthralling season of All My Bitcoins, regardless of what we dastardly "associated with Monero" types do or don't want.

[iCEBREAKER]

Yes D&T, Neilsen's Law...blah blah blah...very impressive.  We know but thanks for being a pedant, and for pretending the bandwidth is evenly distributed.

Meanwhile, back in the real world:

in countries where bandwith costs a lot, full nodes will tend to disapear.

So we will start to make holes in the mesh network.

Exactly what block size the network can support is very much debatable.

There should be more rigorous study of the actual limits of the network.

I'm still worried about the capabilities of typical Internet connections, and especially how they'll increase over time

30 kBps upload is common in Australia, and you sure should be able to run a full node in a typical internet connection in Australia, or Brazil, or Philippines, or whatever. The block size needs to be useful for the (lowest reasonable) common denominator, not the median.

If you come within 1/3 (and probably much less) of maxing out your network connection, your ability to run Bitcoin is dependent on the government NOT telling your network providers to interfere with certain kinds of traffic.  A chain is only as strong as it's weakest link.  If Bitcoin depends on this not happening on a fairly wide scale globally at some point in the future, then it is simply not a very strong solution

And let me reiterate

Onion routing generally adds overhead that can dwarf a small payload such as a Bitcoin transaction and other kinds of cloaking (specifically steganography) can add much more.

I think it more likely than not that at some point there will be the long promised 'cyber 9/11' and some big changes to the global internet even here in the 'free world'.  I've no intention of walking away from my stash just because some douche-bag government administrator and media echo-chamber says that a peer-2-peer internet fosters terrorism or whatever.  If it never happens then that is fine and great, but it means that crypto-currencies are just toys and never did become indispensable tools for wealth protection.  If it does then I want to be prepared and have my wealth protected by the most robust solution available.

[AgentofCoin]

most forum members against the 20mb fork are associated with Monero.

Where is the proof for your claim?

Neither Theymos nor tvbcof nor NewLibery nor sardokan nor davout nor Pete Dushenski are "associated with Monero."

Monero Maximalists should be happy about the Great 20MB Schism, as Monero and other alts could benefit greatly from the fallout of a Bitcoin Civil War.

I hold both and wish to avoid this particular drama, however amazingly entertaining it promises to be.   

But Gavin.gov and the other BTC.mil spooks seem to be going all in with their efforts to Embrace/Extend/Extinguish our little experiment.

So we're in for another enthralling season of All My Bitcoins, regardless of what we dastardly "associated with Monero" types do or don't want.

Did I say any of those people are associated with monero?
You are so batshit crazy.

[iCEBREAKER]

most forum members against the 20mb fork are associated with Monero.

Where is the proof for your claim?

Neither Theymos nor tvbcof nor NewLibery nor sardokan nor davout nor Pete Dushenski are "associated with Monero."

Did I say any of those people are associated with monero?
You are so batshit crazy.

You implied "most" of those people (IE forum members against the fork) are associated with monero.

I may be crazy, but am not the only one who noticed you making a fool of yourself:

Most forum members against the fork are Monero backers you say.
How many exactly?
I can only count 2 in this thread.

Good luck trying to walk back your bullshit claim.

[AgentofCoin]

most forum members against the 20mb fork are associated with Monero.

Where is the proof for your claim?

Neither Theymos nor tvbcof nor NewLibery nor sardokan nor davout nor Pete Dushenski are "associated with Monero."

Did I say any of those people are associated with monero?
You are so batshit crazy.

You implied "most" of those people (IE forum members against the fork) are associated with monero.

I may be crazy, but am not the only one who noticed you making a fool of yourself:

Most forum members against the fork are Monero backers you say.
How many exactly?
I can only count 2 in this thread.

Good luck trying to walk back your bullshit claim.

Maybe you should spend your time creating a new thread where you can outline your unique opinion.
Clearly, you are unhinged and need to be heard and agreed with in order to feel validated.
Go write PMs to Gavin and see if you can convince him of your bandwidth argument.

When I made my statement as to Monero users, I was referring to all threads related to this topic.
Last i checked, there were three, this is only one. (the longest one now)
In the other two threads, Monero users are against the fork as well.

I'm not here to "walk back my bullshit claim", all that the forum members here have to do it check the postings of all the people who are against the fork, within the three threads now, and see what the percentage is. From what I have read the past week and a half, most were monero proponents.

I don't really care if I look like a fool or not in front of forum members.
My life is not this forum and I don't live my life based on others opinions.
Go take a walk and call your psychotherapist when you aren't busy expressing your unique opinion.

[iCEBREAKER]

Most forum members against the fork are Monero backers you say.
How many exactly?
I can only count 2 in this thread.

Good luck trying to walk back your bullshit claim.

*says "I'm not here to walk back my bullshit claim"*
*proceeds to walk back his bullshit claim*
*adds some armchair psychiatry for no apparent reason*

"Most?"

LOL, more like "two."

 

[danielpbarron]

The fork has nothing to do with money supply, it has to do with whether and how to relax a constraint on transaction velocity before that constraint becomes a limiting factor of Bitcoin's utility.  This fork is not inflationary or deflationary.

The fork is exactly about money supply. The primary argument used by those in favor of Gavin's proposal is that the fork is needed in order to make bitcoin more inclusive. If we make concessions to these demands now, what is stopping the same people from insisting we create 5 million bitcoin to airdrop into the wallets of some 3rd world country? When getting "mass adoption" is the primary focus, you end up with things like the dollar. I don't want mass adoption; I want sound money.

This particular hard fork is not a negative impact to the store of value.  If anything, an increase in the velocity of money improves the store of value utility through increased liquidity.

An increased block size does not correlate with an increase in the velocity of money; it correlates with an increase of spam and a decrease of nodes. The rate at which 1 bitcoin is spent has little to do with how many transactions can occur per second. Lot's of poor people spending the same coin back and forth a thousand times is still less velocity than a few rich people spending several thousand coins a few times.

1) charging miners for the cost of network transfer
2) charging transaction creators for the cost of network storage (if their UXTOs are not spent / not feasibly spendable)
3) removing the blocksize limit altogether.

2) can be addressed by a 1 satoshi per day fee on all outputs less than 5460 satoshi UXTOs. Within a day this will prune all the 1 satoshi spam from the blockchain. The 5460 satoshi threshold can be halved every block cycle until eventually this fee no longer applies.

This is despicable, and does nothing to address the concerns over unbounded bandwidth and storage requirements put on full-node operators.

You should be happy to see us go.  Unless, of course, you end up having to admit that you need the rest of us to make this whole thing work.

You aren't needed, and you're not here to lose. And by 'here' I mean "in bitcoin." You aren't in the WoT -- you aren't in bitcoin. We can't lose what we don't have. If there is anyone reading this thread who would like to be a part of bitcoin, you should start the process today. The log isn't going to read itself.

[R2D221]

You aren't needed, and you're not here to lose. And by 'here' I mean "in bitcoin. You aren't in the WoT -- you aren't in bitcoin. We can't lose what we don't have. If there is anyone reading this thread who would like to be a part of bitcoin, you should start the process today. The log isn't going to read itself.

I didn't know being in WoT was necessary to be able to use Bitcoin. Does that mean all those bitcoins I've sent all these years are invalid?

[DooMAD]

If you can't make your point with small black letters, then there's something wrong with the statement, and not with the typography.

That's assuming an honest audience, which is not the case here.

The bandwidth vs storage issue has already been explained in very nice eloquent small black letters by several reputable people.

There was nothing wrong with their statements.

When we talk about bandwidth constraints but others stubbornly insist on pretending cheap hard drives solve that problem, it's time to start screaming.

By raising the profile of the bandwidth vs storage issue, I effectively call out those who conflate the two and force them to defend that position.

Fine, even if I "concede" that bandwidth is in fact the issue (even though I've seen anti-forkers moaning about drive space, so troll harder), can you now answer the actual question?  

The question, which you are still avoiding, is:

If you are staying on a 1MB chain when the fork happens, why do you care what the bandwidth requirements will be when they won't affect you?

You aren't needed, and you're not here to lose. And by 'here' I mean "in bitcoin. You aren't in the WoT -- you aren't in bitcoin. We can't lose what we don't have. If there is anyone reading this thread who would like to be a part of bitcoin, you should start the process today. The log isn't going to read itself.

I didn't know being in WoT was necessary to be able to use Bitcoin. Does that mean all those bitcoins I've sent all these years are invalid?

It's not necessary to be in the circle-jerk of trust.  danielpbarron just wants to recruit more zealots to his adorable little #bitcoin-asshats club.  Actually, it's worse than that.  It's a power grab.  Bitcoin's greatest strength is that it's permission-less and decentralised.  danielpbarron wants a centralised list of "approved" participants so that he and his little club can play gatekeeper.  That's a path no true fan of crypto would ever want to wander down.

[Quantus]

Will any of the major pools continue to mine real Bitcoins after Giga-bloat-coin is created?

[hdbuck]

You aren't needed, and you're not here to lose. And by 'here' I mean "in bitcoin. You aren't in the WoT -- you aren't in bitcoin. We can't lose what we don't have. If there is anyone reading this thread who would like to be a part of bitcoin, you should start the process today. The log isn't going to read itself.

I didn't know being in WoT was necessary to be able to use Bitcoin. Does that mean all those bitcoins I've sent all these years are invalid?

It's not necessary to be in the circle-jerk of trust.  danielpbarron just wants to recruit more zealots to his adorable little #bitcoin-asshats club.  Actually, it's worse than that.  It's a power grab.  Bitcoin's greatest strength is that it's permission-less and decentralised.  danielpbarron wants a centralised list of "approved" participants so that he and his little club can play gatekeeper.  That's a path no true fan of crypto would ever want to wander down.

Nah you are being an utopist 'care bear'.
But in real life, there will always be elites of somehow and no matter what subject or industry.
And I frankly prefer MP busters than TBF scammers.

[DooMAD]

If you are staying on a 1MB chain when the fork happens, why do you care what the bandwidth requirements will be when they won't affect you?

On my side, I care because I hope a better fork proposal will arise, and I care because if Bitcoin explode in two big parts, it will be a hard strike on it.

By the way, I think that "pro" are nowhere near 95% of hashrate supporting the fork, why are you so sure it will happens ?

Pros need 95% to change, anti needs 5%, so it's up to pro forks to have a proposal that gather 95% favorable opinion.

If no one change their minds, nothing will happen (And I think something should happens, but not this)

Because one way or another, the 1MB limit has to go:

Your options are pretty limited at this point:

Outcome 1:  We fork to the 20MB chain and you're left behind on the old chain to run all your own nodes and do all your own mining.

Outcome 2:  The fork doesn't happen, people's transactions stop confirming when the blocks are full and everyone jumps ship to something that actually works.  You're left behind to run all your own nodes and do all your own mining.

Either way, you need to face that fact that we're not sticking around to entertain your rather silly desire to support something that isn't in our benefit.  You can either tag along with us and play ball, or you can act up like some errant child.  It's all a question of how big a scene you want to make.  Either the 1MB limit goes, or we do.  Choose wisely.

If you're proposing an "Outcome 3", then whatever it involves needs to be ready and functional before the inevitable Outcome 2 happens.  If blocks are full and people are left waiting for transactions to go through, all other arguments are irrelevant.  This is simple cause and effect.  Full blocks means people jump ship to something that will confirm their transaction.  Bitcoin becomes an elitist niche, some other coin will go mainstream and everyone will mine that instead.

People have discussed sidechains and pruning and other suggestions, but the fact is, they will take time to implement to make sure they actually work.  A 20MB blocksize is a far more simple solution that will work right now and until I hear something better, that's the one I'll be supporting.

[R2D221]

People have discussed sidechains and pruning and other suggestions, but the fact is, they will take time to implement to make sure they actually work.  A 20MB blocksize is a far more simple solution that will work right now and until I hear something better, that's the one I'll be supporting.

Ok, but, see, we can go for 2-5-8 MB limit (wihtout exponential growth) before we hit the limit, and use the time gained by shooting the can to invent something better

It's not so urgent that our only choice is to implement exponential size growth

What you are saying now is, let's go exponential, maybe we can sustain it.

Blocks won't be instantly full when the limit is raised, so there's no point in going with “not so big blocks”. Unless you have another argument for doing it.

[DooMAD]

People have discussed sidechains and pruning and other suggestions, but the fact is, they will take time to implement to make sure they actually work.  A 20MB blocksize is a far more simple solution that will work right now and until I hear something better, that's the one I'll be supporting.

Ok, but, see, we can go for 2-5-8 MB limit (wihtout exponential growth) before we hit the limit, and use the time gained by shooting the can to invent something better

It's not so urgent that our only choice is to implement exponential size growth

What you are saying now is, let's go exponential, maybe we can sustain it.

This is the worst anti-fork argument, since it means you'd want have to have another hard fork each time you need to increase it.  If exponential adoption happens, either we find a way to cope with it, or another coin will.  Again, there are only two outcomes.  Increase the limit, or jump ship when Bitcoin can't cope and grinds to a halt. 

[R2D221]

Blocks won't be instantly full when the limit is raised, so there's no point in going with “not so big blocks”. Unless you have another argument for doing it.

Yes, we know.

I want the spam limit to be lower, and not exponential.

This 20 MB + EXPONENTIAL growth would be an invitation for all kinds of services to spam the blockchain

No, it's not. Why would you think so? Transactions still need fees to get processed. People trying to spam will simply gave their transactions delayed or never confirmed, or it will cost them too much.

[R2D221]

I think it's better than fuckin' it right now in two clicks because it's easy (or you are paid by USG to fuck it)

“You don't agree with me? You must be from the USG!!!!1!1!!11”. Whoever those guys are. I feel you're just making up acronyms.

[DooMAD]

People have discussed sidechains and pruning and other suggestions, but the fact is, they will take time to implement to make sure they actually work.  A 20MB blocksize is a far more simple solution that will work right now and until I hear something better, that's the one I'll be supporting.

Ok, but, see, we can go for 2-5-8 MB limit (wihtout exponential growth) before we hit the limit, and use the time gained by shooting the can to invent something better

It's not so urgent that our only choice is to implement exponential size growth

What you are saying now is, let's go exponential, maybe we can sustain it.

This is the worst anti-fork argument, since it means you'd want have to have another hard fork each time you need to increase it.  If exponential adoption happens, either we find a way to cope with it, or another coin will.  Again, there are only two outcomes.  Increase the limit, or jump ship when Bitcoin can't cope and grinds to a halt.  

No, we will need a hardfork to implement the more intelligent solution that we would have found during the newly bought time.

I think it's better than fuckin' it right now in two clicks because it's easy (or you are paid by USG to fuck it)

Either way, I'm not going to argue too much on this point, since you do recognise that 1MB isn't sufficient and a fork is absolutely needed.  That's the main point I'm trying to get across.  I'd probably still support the fork if we settled on something like a 10 or 15MB limit, but I wouldn't want to risk going any lower than that unless I saw some really compelling evidence that it would be enough to support any future growth in adoption we might experience.  It's fair to say we both agree that something else will need to happen in future to make the whole thing sustainable, but no one knows for sure what that something will be yet.  

But mostly I just want to hear why the 1MB fanatics are so desperate to keep repeating the same non-sequitur that they will keep a 1MB limit for themselves and stay on the old chain regardless of what the rest of us do, but still oppose the fork even though it's supposed negative effects will have no bearing on them.  They say they don't want small transactions clogging up "their" chain, but at the same time they don't want us to go.  It makes no logical sense.

[danielpbarron]

You aren't needed, and you're not here to lose. And by 'here' I mean "in bitcoin." You aren't in the WoT -- you aren't in bitcoin. We can't lose what we don't have. If there is anyone reading this thread who would like to be a part of bitcoin, you should start the process today. The log isn't going to read itself.

I didn't know being in WoT was necessary to be able to use Bitcoin. Does that mean all those bitcoins I've sent all these years are invalid?

It means that those bitcoin were sent from a non-person. Even automated scripts can send a transaction; don't feel too special.

Will any of the major pools continue to mine real Bitcoins after Giga-bloat-coin is created?

It won't be created, and no. They can't even get people to mine with 0.10, let alone some hypothetical fork-maker.

[R2D221]

I didn't know being in WoT was necessary to be able to use Bitcoin. Does that mean all those bitcoins I've sent all these years are invalid?

It means that those bitcoin were sent from a non-person. Even automated scripts can send a transaction; don't feel too special.

Thanks for stripping away my human rights. I really appreciate it.

[PenguinFire]

I am not a tech genius but I am pretty sure this had to happen eventually anyways.