Bitcoin 20MB Fork

[danielpbarron]

I have achieved what I've set out for: because of your weakness in wanting validation (and mostly stupidity), you have revealed your position as a paid shill.

I don't see how that's relevant to my argument here. He paid me to post on other forums; not this one. I'm doing this for free. Also, I'm not paid to lie; these are things I would have been arguing regardless of pay. Hey, I've also been paid to write for Qntra; does that mean I'm not a legitimate journalist? I suppose this "if you're paid to do something it must be bad" thing fits in with your advocacy of socialism. Go buy some reddit gold so you can upvote regurgitations of the latest derpopolus podcast.

[1715100757]

1715100757

[1715100757]

1715100757

[1715100757]

1715100757

[1715100757]

1715100757

[freedomno1]

Well Eduffield just put up a decent idea in the Darkcoin blog on the issue

Rebranding and Scalability:

https://darkcointalk.org/threads/rebranding-and-scalability.4254/

The Bitcoin developers and community are talking about expanding the maximum blockchain size to 20MB. Currently the Bitcoin network can handle 7 transactions per second. This will allow their currency to 140 transactions per second, but will also result in up to 1TB per year in blockchain storage (until they successfully implement pruning).

Eventually Gavin Andresen sees blocks getting to 100MB+, with tens of thousands of transactions per block. See http://gavintech.blogspot.com/2015/01/twenty-megabytes-testing-results.html and https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1CuOEM9uwO5w-RwWGCCZpVGVFwhHHHegxJZqTP5KyapI/edit#gid=0.

[davout]

There's too much potential value to be realized by a universal monetary ledger to imagine that some kind of fragmented solution will successfully compete.

Why would monoculture necessarily be a good thing ?

[justusranvier]

Why would monoculture necessarily be a good thing ?

Monoculture is a scary word, but does it really apply here?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Climate_Orbiter

[davout]

Why would monoculture necessarily be a good thing ?

Monoculture is a scary word, but does it really apply here?

If you are arguing that everyone using the same tool for all means and purposes is a desirable goal, you should be prepared to explain why it is so desirable.
I hope you won't find these words too frightening, which should leave you free to actually answer the question.

[justusranvier]

you should be prepared to explain why

Fortunately, this has already been explained, several times, by many different people.

By now most of the people who are capable and willing to comprehend the reason already do.

[davout]

If you are arguing that everyone using the same tool for all means and purposes is a desirable goal, you should be prepared to explain why it is so desirable.

Fortunately, this has already been explained, several times, by many different people.

By now most of the people who are capable and willing to comprehend the reason already do.

Figured you'd weasel your way out of this one... Bingo.
Anyway your intellectual dishonesty doesn't really matter, what matters is that everyone gets to see that you fail to answer this pretty simple question, and gets to make their mind up for themselves.


Incidentally, this even seems pretty obvious to reddit too. To quote the top comment on this latests piece of yours:

Is it reasonable to assume that one billion people would be willing to pay $1 per day to use Bitcoin?

I don't think so. I think this a gross overestimation for the demand for censorship resistant transactions.

[Buffer Overflow]

I have achieved what I've set out for: because of your weakness in wanting validation (and mostly stupidity), you have revealed your position as a paid shill.

I don't see how that's relevant to my argument here. He paid me to post on other forums; not this one. I'm doing this for free.

Let's be quite clear, your not doing it for free, your doing it to brown nose Popescu hoping he'll throw you a few scraps.
Good god man, sort yourself out, what the hell is wrong with you?

[RoadStress]

How do you propose that we invent a better finance system? By not inventing and trying new stuff? How did everything that we have today got to this point? By getting it right from the first time and never trying new and absurd things to everything around us???

Go invent your "better finance system" somewhere else; if it's truly better, it'll win out. I'm not afraid of all the countless altcoins attempting exactly this.

That doesn't answer to my question. I will try again: How do you propose that we invent a better finance system? By nailing it from the first time? This is what we had with our current financial system?

I expect an answer, not a rejection, but I don't assume that you are capable of one since you already tried to divert the discussion. Show me something that big like a financial system that got it right from the first time without experimenting new stuff! I dare you! Double dare you!

[davout]

By nailing it from the first time?

Isn't this precisely what Gavin wants to do? By committing Bitcoin today, to what he thinks the capabilities of tomorrow's computers will be?

[RoadStress]

By nailing it from the first time?

Isn't this precisely what Gavin wants to do? By committing Bitcoin today, to what he thinks the capabilities of tomorrow's computers will be?

Well no. You are trying to divert from the subject one again. Gavin is the pioneer that pushed development and evolution further. Every software has evolved this way. Every software pushed the hardware to new limits. Looking at every piece of software from inception up to today's state it's easily to see that the requirements of software were always bigger than current hardware until they reach an equilibrium. Didn't PC games pushed the video card business further? Didn't video processing pushed hardware further in terms of pure raw power and code optimization?

By your logic no software should evolve if the developers aren't pushing the current hardware requirements.

Even if the tomorrow's computers will not be able to handle it, it's not like we can't go back if the tomorrow computers will not be able to handle what is Gavin proposing and it's not like we will not have some kind of warnings ahead.

I would expect to see more constructive points from a Staff member instead of continuous opposing arguments and useless questions that bring nothing new to the table.

[zebedee]

I have achieved what I've set out for: because of your weakness in wanting validation (and mostly stupidity), you have revealed your position as a paid shill.

I don't see how that's relevant to my argument here. He paid me to post on other forums; not this one. I'm doing this for free.

Let's be quite clear, your not doing it for free, your doing it to brown nose Popescu hoping he'll throw you a few scraps.
Good god man, sort yourself out, what the hell is wrong with you?

Lol, sad but true.

[sickpig]

FWIW I am relatively new here, though, after having read the article, I can't avoid noticing that Paymium/Bitcoin-central
offers this services not directly but through a chain of partnership (Paymium -> Aqoba -> Crédit Mutuel Arkea).

I dunno if it still applies, the article's quite old as it was published on Dec 2012, but if it's the case I've seen more than once the
"Finance industry" fighting back trying cutting links between exchanges and the entity entitled of the actual money transmitter
license. I'm not saying that's the case, though.

Your reading and comprehension are accurate.

Now that you've validated my skills I feel better.

Joking aside I just want to underline how this kind of ties could be suddenly cut for a reason or another.

[davout]

Joking aside I just want to underline how this kind of ties could be suddenly cut for a reason or another.

Sure. If that kind of business was easy and straigthforward, everyone would be doing it.
The particular way in which we do it makes it so that each of our customers has an account directly with the financial partner, which makes cutting the tie on a whim much harder for the bank.

It protects our customers a lot in the sense that the bank can't simply and suddenly freeze our funds on a BS pretext, they have to answer to each and every customer individually. As of today there are only two entities doing this properly, Paymium, and bitcoin.de

You are trying to divert from the subject one again.

Just putting a mirror in front of you. If that's not an enjoyable experience it's usually not the mirror that's to blame...

Gavin is the pioneer that pushed development and evolution further. Every software has evolved this way. Every software pushed the hardware to new limits. Looking at every piece of software from inception up to today's state it's easily to see that the requirements of software were always bigger than current hardware until they reach an equilibrium. Didn't PC games pushed the video card business further? Didn't video processing pushed hardware further in terms of pure raw power and code optimization?

You can't compare bitcoin to video games if you want to make any sort of sense.

By your logic no software should evolve if the developers aren't pushing the current hardware requirements.

With your logic we end up with a new iOS every year, designed at pushing the hardware and getting us to buy a new iPhone...

Even if the tomorrow's computers will not be able to handle it, it's not like we can't go back if the tomorrow computers will not be able to handle what is Gavin proposing and it's not like we will not have some kind of warnings ahead.

That's completely backwards, it just makes so much more sense to wait that the hardware actually is of handling it before doing a modification...

[danielpbarron]

I know you gotta eat, but a thought experiment: replace the name MP with Josh Garza and see how stupid revealing your shill position is, because they're equally scum of the earth.

Suppose that some mysterious organization paid me to post here, just like you, I don't see how that's relevant to my arguments at all!  

Or I could search the logs for garza and "from:mircea_popescu" to find that the latter was calling the former a scammer in December 2014.

mircea_popescu: here's a newsflash : idiots defrauded by garza haven't "lost their money trying to take over bitcoin" anymore than the idiots defrauded by buterin & the us propaganda machine through the etherium scam have lost their money "trying to take over bitcoin"
mircea_popescu: you weren't in any sense and at any point trying to "take over bitcoin", or anything else for that matter.
mircea_popescu: you just... gave a scammer... some of your money. because you're stupid. whole story.

And there is no mystery which organization I came to support. What's a mystery is why you're here -- whether stupidity, malice, or both. Either way, the wood-chipper awaits.

Let's be quite clear, your not doing it for free, your doing it to brown nose Popescu hoping he'll throw you a few scraps.

If that were true, and I'm not saying it's entirely false, so what? Do you think I argue against socialism in favor of hierarchy to be ironic?

I expect an answer, not a rejection, but I don't assume that you are capable of one since you already tried to divert the discussion. Show me something that big like a financial system that got it right from the first time without experimenting new stuff! I dare you! Double dare you!

I don't care what you've come to expect. You and your ilk are the ones trying to "divert the discussion." I am on point: there will be no hard fork, and anyone who falls for it will lose their money. Show me anything like bitcoin. Diversion? The diversion is implying that bitcoin should be like anything that's ever happened before.

[DooMAD]

I am not at all surprised that my comments on this forum are not well accepted. Before bitcoin came along I was (and still am) one of those people who preaches a literal interpretation of The Bible, against the entire world. It has never been my goal to fit in or make lots of friends. My goal is strictly to tell the truth, no matter how offensive it may be.

Pretty sure you've got that backwards.  You latch on to the most offensive drivel you can find and then make a decision to interpret that drivel as truth.  Then you jump on your high horse and spout said drivel.  It's no wonder you're such a fan of Mircea-Next-Tuesday.

There isn't a single thing that you, Davout, Mircea-Next-Tuesday or any of the other #bitcoin-asshats can say that doesn't give the the immediate impression that this is a power play on your part.  You honestly see yourselves as gatekeepers trying to keep out the lowly peasants and it's sickening.  Now is not the time to raise the drawbridge and shut everyone else out.  

It's clear what you're hoping to achieve.  By keeping a 1MB limit, you guarantee a decentralised and secure system for yourselves and force everyone else to place trust in an off-chain, third party service and risk getting screwed over.  Anyone who adopts crypto from this point forward will not accept a second tier service because a bunch of elitist crackpots think a little too highly of themselves.  That's why the fork is going ahead.

[danielpbarron]

You honestly see yourselves as gatekeepers trying to keep out the lowly peasants and it's sickening.  Now is not the time to raise the drawbridge and shut everyone else out.

Except that the "drawbridge" is still open -- that is, the barrier to entry is still relatively low. All you need to do is get in the WoT, and read the log for a year or so. If I was trying to keep you out, I wouldn't be here telling you about it.

[sickpig]

Joking aside I just want to underline how this kind of ties could be suddenly cut for a reason or another.

Sure. If that kind of business was easy and straigthforward, everyone would be doing it.
The particular way in which we do it makes it so that each of our customers has an account directly with the financial partner, which makes cutting the tie on a whim much harder for the bank.

It protects our customers a lot in the sense that the bank can't simply and suddenly freeze our funds on a BS pretext, they have to answer to each and every customer individually. As of today there are only two entities doing this properly, Paymium, and bitcoin.de

very well done.

kudos to Paymium and bitcoin.de then.

[onemorexmr]

You honestly see yourselves as gatekeepers trying to keep out the lowly peasants and it's sickening.  Now is not the time to raise the drawbridge and shut everyone else out.

Except that the "drawbridge" is still open -- that is, the barrier to entry is still relatively low. All you need to do is get in the WoT, and read the log for a year or so. If I was trying to keep you out, I wouldn't be here telling you about it.

this hole MP thing sounds more and more like a sect to me.

(i wont comment on blocksize change anymore - unsure whats best and i'll keep the decision to the people who have to decide it: miners)

[DooMAD]

You honestly see yourselves as gatekeepers trying to keep out the lowly peasants and it's sickening.  Now is not the time to raise the drawbridge and shut everyone else out.

Except that the "drawbridge" is still open -- that is, the barrier to entry is still relatively low. [and yet another plug for the circle-jerk-of-trust that I'm not going to dignify by quoting a link to]

If the userbase increases and blocks are full, the choices are as follows:

• Pay an average fee and still wait for the next available block that isn't full (which will take longer and longer as more users join, even if you pay a fee)
• Pay an above-average fee and hope that it's more than everyone else is paying (and if you don't guess correctly, wait for the next block)
• Go off chain and hope that whoever you trusted doesn't run off with the coins
• Use another coin

Obviously the whales won't mind paying the above-average fee, but everyone else will be forced to introduce risk to their transaction.  It will either be delayed, or if you go off chain, you have to place trust in a third party.  Guaranteed security for them, risk for everyone else.

Or, we could remove the pointless, artificial 1MB bottleneck and everything carries on exactly like it does now.  The blockchain doesn't instantly double or treble in size.  It doesn't lead to mass-centralisation (or if it does, it will happen much more slowly than it would if we start forcing users off-chain).  None of the other idiotic horror stories your side of the debate has raised will come true.

You might try to carry out Mircea-Next-Tuesday's little threat and launch your 1MB-only nodes if you fancy fighting the inevitable, but I'm still pretty sure you're full of hot air on that one since you know it would be financial suicide.  When the fork goes ahead, you're going to tag along and play nice because you don't have any other choice.

this hole MP thing sounds more and more like a sect to me.

Spot on.  They've already made the argument that when Gavin spent a few minutes in their IRC channel to have a chat with them, that it was a sign of weakness or concession on his part (which is obviously horseshit), yet they still think they can tempt the rest of us in there.  It's just a desperate, evangelical, recruitment drive to try and drum up support for their odious side of the argument.