Bitcoin 20MB Fork

[R2D221]

Most of the people don't have a clue how the Internet actually works (and they don't need to), and that doesn't stop more than a billion people to use Facebook daily.

This actually illustrates the point beautilfully, what would happen if, suddenly, one billion people couldn't use Facebook anymore?
The idea that this would make the internet one fifth less useful is fucking ridiculous on its face.

If, suddenly, one billion people couldn't use Facebook anymore, then it would be because of a literal apocalypse. Facebook can't just disappear overnight. Even if they were to go bankrupt or banned or anything else, there would be an announcement, letting people leave for other services before they do disappear.

Also, Bitcoin is different in that, while Facebook severs can be shut down tomorrow (but highly unlikely), it's literally impossible to just “shut down Bitcoin servers” without bringing down the whole Internet in the process.

[1715108618]

1715108618

[1715108618]

1715108618

[1715108618]

1715108618

[1715108618]

1715108618

[1715108618]

1715108618

[1715108618]

1715108618

[DooMAD]

I'll add it to the list of things like sidechains, pruning and other things that keep getting raised when you run out of arguments.  All sound great in theory, but actually need to be finished, ready to go and proven reliable before they can be considered viable alternatives.  Until that time comes, the 1MB limit has to go.

Open Transactions is ready.

The developer himself posted this reply on Reddit:

OT is perfectly operational now, but without voting pools, you would have to trust the server to hold the bitcoins.

We expect to see wide adoption in the Bitcoin world once voting pools are operational. And we are definitely working hard on making them into a reality. But we want to do it right. There are several different teams working full-time on this.

Do your fucking homework before answering.

You first.  If it's not trustless yet, it's not ready.

[R2D221]

What are we still doing here? We're going in circles and nobody is reasoning anymore. Why don't we just let this thread die, since it's clear nobody is convincing the other side at all?

[davout]

If, suddenly, one billion people couldn't use Facebook anymore, then it would be because of a literal apocalypse. Facebook can't just disappear overnight.

You lack imagination, if the great firewall of China decides to block Facebook, poof, one billion less users. Overnight.
That is, if it's not already blocking it, probably is, thinking about it...

Also, Bitcoin is different in that, while Facebook severs can be shut down tomorrow (but highly unlikely), it's literally impossible to just “shut down Bitcoin servers” without bringing down the whole Internet in the process.

I argue that allowing the block size to grow is equivalent to making Bitcoin as vulnerable as Facebook currently is. In other words, centralized enough that it becomes vulnerable.

You first.  If it's not trustless yet, it's not ready.

See you added the 'trustless' bit later on. I happen to disagree.
Anyway, it is my considered opinion that voting pools are pretty useless, because they constrain the OT servers in such a way that they have to be strictly iso-functional to all other OT servers participating in the same voting pools in order for the voting pools concept to work.

[DooMAD]

What are we still doing here? We're going in circles and nobody is reasoning anymore. Why don't we just let this thread die, since it's clear nobody is convincing the other side at all?

That's assuming I'm trying to change their mind.  I'm happy for the 1MB crowd to keep talking.  Honestly, they're their own worst enemy.  The more people see their replies, the more obvious it is they only have their own interests at heart.  Once the majority of users see them for what they are, elitist one-percenter-wannabees who generally have close ties to centralised exchanges and that #bitcoin-asshats IRC channel, it's inevitable that the fork will go ahead.

[justusranvier]

guys, the bitbeans shitcoin with 20MB blocks falls out of sync (no surprise for me)

conclusion: 20MB blocks will likely lead to bad sync and qt-clients falling out of sync.
This problem will almost certainly occure and make bitcoin a horror for the user.
Syncing problems for a majority of users can be expected.

#justsayin'

What you're saying is that just because the block size limit might suddenly jump to 20 MB, there's no good reason to assume the actual size of blocks will jump at the same time.

Since 20 MB blocks aren't practical on the current network, nobody will mine them even though the protocol allows such.

Just like how Bitcoin blocks have, ever since the block size limit was implemented, always remained smaller than the limit.

[davout]

Just like how Bitcoin blocks have, ever since the block size limit was implemented, always remained smaller than the limit.

That's kind of, you know, the point of a limit.

[R2D221]

If, suddenly, one billion people couldn't use Facebook anymore, then it would be because of a literal apocalypse. Facebook can't just disappear overnight.

You lack imagination, if the great firewall of China decides to block Facebook, poof, one billion less users. Overnight.
That is, if it's not already blocking it, probably is, thinking about it...

North Korea is virtually disconnected from the rest of the world, and there's nothing we can do about it (except maybe start a war?). No innovative cryptocoin with the most powerful proof of algorithm and the fairest distribution of them all will be able to reach them.

Also, Bitcoin is different in that, while Facebook severs can be shut down tomorrow (but highly unlikely), it's literally impossible to just “shut down Bitcoin servers” without bringing down the whole Internet in the process.

I argue that allowing the block size to grow is equivalent to making Bitcoin as vulnerable as Facebook currently is. In other words, centralized enough that it becomes vulnerable.

Then you should know by now why your argument is wrong. Read all the discussion that has been happening in this thread.

[R2D221]

Just like how Bitcoin blocks have, ever since the block size limit was implemented, always remained smaller than the limit.

That's kind of, you know, the point of a limit.

No, it's actually because there haven't been enough transactions to reach the limit.

[Arghhh]

Think you will find 80+% of blocks with fake nodes ?  

Of course, 20MB fake nodes. What's your point?  

My point is that fake nodes dont' win POW armrace. That's why bitcoin is secure.

Then it's back to all things equal, the more numerous consensus will win. Poll above has writing on the wall.

[Arghhh]

Think you will find 80+% of blocks with fake nodes ?  

Of course, 20MB fake nodes. What's your point?  

My point is that fake nodes dont' win POW armrace. That's why bitcoin is secure.

Then it's back to all things equal, the more numerous consensus will win. Poll above has writing on the wall.

You need 80% of hashrate to win. Not nodes.

That's already taken into account. The Americans nodes supports Gavin.
The Chinese are pragmatic and will follow Gavin.
There can be no victory against the majority.

[danielpbarron]

I just noticed that most of the 20MB opponents are altcoin supporters. They're the same people who would troll sidechain proposals too. They don't want positive things for Bitcoin.

FWIW, I do not support any altcoins. I am of the opinion that there can be only one, and that one is bitcoin.

I dont understand whats the real problem with 20mb fork, its obviously necessary to keep up with advancement.

See this:

III. I don't understand why anybody would be against a larger block.

The popular name to this is "arguing to ignorance". You might also not understand why anyone would propose you wash, stop collecting broken car engines on plastic foil in front of your dilapidated motorhome or fucking your cousins. What you understand or don't understand is not a proper subject of discussion, and you aren't welcome to try and foist it on intelligent people who aren't your parents.

You need 80% of hashrate to win. Not nodes.

The miners will follow the money; not the other way around:

VII. The minersⁱ decide.

No, they do not. The miners make some minor decisions in Bitcoin, but major decisions such as block forks are not at their disposition alone, and this for excellent reasons you'll readily understand if you stop and think about it.

There are two specific methods to control miners on this matter, which will make the scamcoin Gavin is trying to replace everyone's Bitcoin with only replace some people's Bitcoin. The first and most obvious is that irrespective of what miners mine, each single full node will reject illegal blocks. This is a fact. If all the miners out there suddenly quit Bitcon and go mine Keiser's Aurora scamcoin instead, from the perspective of the Bitcoin network hash rate simply dropped and that's all. There's absolutely no difference between Keiser's scamcoin and Gavin's scam coin as far as the network is concerned : while one's a scammer that I humiliatingly defeated in the past whereas the other a scammer that I humiliatingly defeat in the future, this makes no difference for Bitcoin. As far as anyone will be able to perceive, miners simply left.

The second and perhaps not as obvious has nevertheless been discussed at length on multiple occasions on #bitcoin-assets. Consider this terse explanation from March. 2013.

mircea_popescu: whoever has enough money to matter is likely to pick one chain for whatever reason
mircea_popescu: since fork means btc can be spent independently on either chain
mircea_popescu: he will sell his btc on one and perhaps buy on the other.
mircea_popescu: as a result prices will rapidly diverge, panicking the mass of users, and the fork is economically resolved.

The situation here is aggravated by the fact that the fork proposed is not simply nondeterministic behaviourⁱⁱ, and so the holdings on the two chains aren't notionally equivalent. Instead, all the holdings on the Bitcoin chain are accepted as valid on both Bitcoin and Gavincoin, but holdings on Gavincoin are rejected by Bitcoin. Consequently, everyone involved with the fork is writing options to everyone in Bitcoin, free of charge. That they have no ready way to finance these should be obvious, and consequently the grim prospects of the Gavin side of the fork should be just as obvious. At least, to people who understand economy to any degree.

What you're saying is that just because the block size limit might suddenly jump to 20 MB, there's no good reason to assume the actual size of blocks will jump at the same time.

Since 20 MB blocks aren't practical on the current network, nobody will mine them even though the protocol allows such.

Just like how Bitcoin blocks have, ever since the block size limit was implemented, always remained smaller than the limit.

For those who might still have an ear to hear:

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

This is not how economics work. Quoting Buffettⁱ :

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Then it's back to all things equal, the more numerous consensus will win. Poll above has writing on the wall.

Nope. Covered already:

XIV. We all agree.

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

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

[Lauda]

So what is the point of "fake 20 MB nodes"?

Useless information, unrelated to the thread. That's the point of this. This thread is stretching out way too far without actually going anywhere. Looks like it's been 100 pages of going around in the same circle.             Although there has yet to be presented a valid reason not to fork.

@post above
Quoting Buffet is valid because the textile industry works the same as Bitcoin does.

[danielpbarron]

This thread is stretching out way too far without actually going anywhere. Looks like it's been 100 pages of going around in the same circle.             Although there has yet to be presented a valid reason not to fork.

There is nowhere this thread could possibly go. The onus is on proponents of a fork to "present a valid reason." Also already covered:

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.

[hdbuck]

So what is the point of "fake 20 MB nodes"?

Useless information, unrelated to the thread. That's the point of this. This thread is stretching out way too far without actually going anywhere. Looks like it's been 100 pages of going around in the same circle.            
Although there has yet to be presented a valid reason not to fork.

please.. FTFY    

[Lauda]

Useless information, unrelated to the thread. That's the point of this. This thread is stretching out way too far without actually going anywhere. Looks like it's been 100 pages of going around in the same circle.            
Although there has yet to be presented a valid reason not to fork.

please.. FTFY   

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=946236.0
There you have more than enough reasons to go around.

@guy quoting MP
Such idiotic posts shall be smashed with the ignore hammer. I'm tired of MP and his band of shills.

[danielpbarron]

While you quote stuff from a Romanian nutcase, while the rest of the world tunes into the MIT Bitcoin Expo.

While I quote actual arguments, you spam memes.

hm, ok.

How much money do you suppose is in "the MIT Bitcoin Expo" ? I mean real money; not bezzledollars.

[hdbuck]

Useless information, unrelated to the thread. That's the point of this. This thread is stretching out way too far without actually going anywhere. Looks like it's been 100 pages of going around in the same circle.            
Although there has yet to be presented a valid reason not to fork.

please.. FTFY    

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=946236.0
There you have more than enough reasons to go around.

yea, been there, done that:

sidechains?

Side chains and payment channels (or payment hubs) are methods to improve the transaction density of the blockchain.  That means you can get more economic transactions from a single on-chain transaction.  They are great ideas but they still require at least infrequent access to the primary chain.  

Code:

Maximum supported users based on transaction frequency.
Assumptions: 1MB block, 821 bytes per txn
Throughput:  2.03 tps, 64,000,000 transactions annually

Total #        Transactions per  Transaction
direct users     user annually    Frequency
       <8,000       8760          Once an hour
      178,000        365          Once a day
      500,000        128          A few (2.4) times a week
    1,200,000         52          Once a week
    2,600,000         24	  Twice a month
    5,300,000         12	  Once a month
   16,000,000          4	  Once a quarter
   64,000,000          1          Once a year
  200,000,000          0.3        Less than once every few years
1,000,000,000          0.06       Less than once a decade

As you can see even with a low transaction frequency the network can't support more than a token number of users.  When someone advocates a permanent cap of 1MB what they are saying is "I think Bitcoin can live up to its full potential even if it is never used by more than a couple million users making less than one transaction per month.

So yes using sidechains, cross chain atomic transactions, and payment channels are trustless methods to reduce transaction frequency but they are multipliers.  One could look at the primary chain like a savings account and the alternative as a credit/debit card.  I may make 300+ transactions on my debit card each month and only two involving my saving account.  The good news is 2 is less than 300 but it still isn't zero.  

If alternatives reduce on chain tx frequency down to even just once a quarter or once a year you are still talking about capping the network to tens of millions of users.  Does Bitcoin need 16GB blocks?  Probably not.  It is one option but it isn't necessary.  There are other ways to go about reaching scalability but you aren't getting there from 1MB blocks on the primary chain.

Nowadays (real life), here are the stats i get:

- there is between 80 000 and 110 000 transactions per day (or 0,9 to 1,30 tps)
- there would be around 2 to 4 million bitcoin users (extrapolating from blockchain's + coinbase's wallet database and bitcoin's downloads statistics)

-> this gives me 0,0275 to 0,04 transaction/user/day (or 0,825 to 1,2 transaction/user/month)

According to your table, people would be able only to transact twice to once a month with full blocks (2,03 tps).
So my results are even more conservative (since blocks arent even full).
Yet, it doesnt seem to be a problem currently.
People does not actually seems to restrain themselves from transacting more on a daily basis like your table would like to suggest.. but they just dont, right?

Personally I transact mostly offchain (trading plateforms).
Maybe buy couple products or services per month, but i mean, like it or not, bitcoin is not as handy as cash or credit cards for everyday purchases and even more for the average joe you keep on appealing.

It'd be a safe guess to think that most of the current 2+ million bitcoin users are having the same practices. Besides simply holding, speculating or hedging part of their wealth out of the crippled financial system.

Hence, there is a difference between the users' transactional behaviour you extrapolate on (buying frappucinos) and real bitcoin users.

Imho, we could easily go beyond 10 million bitcoin users without any difficulties regarding scaling.
As to when this would happen, Im not going to guestimate there..

But luckily this would give us enough time to investigate further on.

[Arghhh]

[R2D221]

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.

Yes. “Go away” is a perfectly reasonable argument.