Bitcoin 20MB Fork

[danielpbarron]

(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)

Sorry for repeating myself, but you are bringing up previously refuted points:

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.

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.

If the fork were to succeed somehow, I would be done with bitcoin. I'm not going to start supporting UnSavoryGarnish just because it's taken a trendier hippsterish form. And since this is yet another rehashing of previously refuted points:

XIII. Bitcoin has worked fine so far, and is sending the world's elite running for cover - from political to financial to media elites. Clearly this means more of the same won't work in the future, and it must be changed to more closely conform to what these elites like to see, which only coincidentally happens to strictly resemble each and every other previous challenge to their authority, which only coincidentally hapepend to all failed. Because we're idiots, and so should be you! For equality.

Go away.

[1714830559]

1714830559

[1714830559]

1714830559

[NewLiberty]

Does anyone else find it sad, a bit depressing, that this thread has once again devolved into conflicts of personalities instead of ideas?
It doesn't matter what any individual personality supports, what matters is whether the proposition itself is meritorious.  Nobody gets to rest on their laurels no matter how gilded those laurels may be.  

I don't like the current proposal, it is a decent guess, but it doesn't solve the problem.  It is a patch only.  It takes tremendous hubris to imagine that anyone knows what will happen with Bitcoin transaction volumes in 20 years.

Since any proposal that projects future transaction volume will be guaranteed to be wrong, why this proposal?  
- If a proposal is too small, it takes a hard fork to increase it.
- If it is too big, a soft fork can make it smaller, or the miners can use smaller values for their max block sizes.
So the proposal errs on the side of being too big, and wrong for 20 years.

Understanding the reasoning doesn't help me to like it.  I still hope a good better proposal, or at least a road map for fixing the block size issue.  
Instead we have a patch for expediency.  This is a huge opportunity here to make a meaningful contribution to the wealth of the code that is being wasted and put on the back burner for a generation.

[DooMAD]

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.

If the fork were to succeed somehow, I would be done with bitcoin.

That's the best reason to support the fork yet.  

You can try to refute what I'm saying by yet again quoting MP's ramblings, but it doesn't change the fact that people's natural tendency is to want what benefits them.  A 1MB limit will not benefit the majority, so the majority won't want it.  Why would anyone support a system that guarantees security for the few and forces risk and uncertainty on the many?  Unless they're one of the few, that is.

[NewLiberty]

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.

The fees are pretty tiny, they aren't what supports mining, the inflation supports the mining.  The 20 year proposal bridges the time where this may be projected to change from inflation to fee supported mining.  This may make it particularly dangerous in its assumptions.  We won't really know until we get there.

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.

The limit isn't pointless.  Please understand the reasons satoshi added it before progressing further.

When the fork goes ahead, you're going to tag along and play nice because you don't have any other choice.

This sentence does even more damage to your position than anything else you have written here.

[DooMAD]

When the fork goes ahead, you're going to tag along and play nice because you don't have any other choice.

This sentence does even more damage to your position than anything else you have written here.

This whole discussion started because MP decided to throw his toys out of the pram and start making threats.  Me calling BS on those threats doesn't undermine my position in any way, shape or form.  I want what's best for the many, not what's best for MP and his band of cronies.

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.

The limit isn't pointless.  Please understand the reasons satoshi added it before progressing further.

This has been discussed to death.  The limit was intended to prevent blockchain spam, not create an artificial bottleneck to limit legitimate transactions and force legitimate users off-chain, which is the effect it's going to have if it isn't raised.  

[danielpbarron]

A 1MB limit will not benefit the majority, so the majority won't want it.  Why would anyone support a system that guarantees security for the few and forces risk and uncertainty on the many?  Unless they're one of the few, that is.

I do not deny that "the majority" wants all sorts of stupid things; where you're wrong is that this somehow matters. They don't have any money, and therefore will not get their way in this world. How does your argument differ from that which is used to justify the Federal Reserve? I mean, do you think bitcoin is supposed to be like Obolacare? If "adoption for all" is the goal of the former like "heathcare for all" was the goal for the latter, then why not just make a key escrow between thermos and USGavin that enables them to create a coinbase of arbitrary value whenever they please, for the purpose of giving money to people who wouldn't otherwise have been able to participate?

The miners decide, they can be influenced by points 1 and 2, but they decide

For point 1, if 80+% miners leave (if not, fork won't happens), it will be long to recover and have a difficulty that fit the left hashrate.

For point 2, it's economical factors that will influence miners. so they still decide, but one can influence them. also, to buy on Bitcoin chain, it will be very hard to move coins with the left hasrate.

For point 1, they can't even get more than 10% on "version 3" which isn't even the hard-forking version. Check your debug.log for the string 'SetBestChain'.

For point 2, it may be hard, but not impossible. But it won't be an issue for long. The miners will be forced to switch back in that scenario because they will not find enough buyers on the new chain. The U.S. Government can try to prop up gavincoin for a time, but they will eventually run out of other people's money -- that is, the more they spend on electricity and gavincoin, the more they devalue the dollar. This serves to strengthen the real bitcoin. And since the fork necessarily writes free options for those of us who want to keep the old chain, we'll be shorting gavincoin on the open market while buying up the real deal. It's a win-win-win, and no matter how you look at it the fork just cannot succeed. At this point the only purpose in promoting it is to create a time-sink/distraction from more productive endeavors.

The limit was intended to prevent blockchain spam, not create an artificial bottleneck to limit legitimate transactions and force legitimate users off-chain, which is the effect it's going to have if it isn't raised.

What you call "legitimate transactions" I call spam. Pay for your voluntaryism themed lapel pins with silver rounds for all I care, but don't think for a second I will abide them on my hard drive.

[Market6677]

what´s the actually version?!

[NxtChg]

They don't have any money, and therefore will not get their way in this world.

Oh yeah, those poor fekkers, who needs them, right?

I mean, who supports everything from Minecraft and Apple sales to Kardashians? It's probably just Bill Gates and Buffett who buys all that stuff
Let's build a coin for those two.

It's true, your sect is its own worst enemy. The more you talk, the worse your intellectual capacity looks.

[davout]

who supports everything from Minecraft and Apple sales to Kardashians?

oO

[NewLiberty]

I want what's best for the many, not what's best for MP and his band of cronies.

This is almost as good as wanting what is best for each of the sets of interests, i.e., Bitcoin.  The goals of "MP and his band of cronies" are as valuable as everyone else's, and arguably add quite a lot of value to everyone else's interests as well.  Both MP and Gavin (and you and I) want Bitcoin to succeed.  Your enemy here is not MP or anyone else, your (our) enemy is an insufficiently advanced Bitcoin code.

It is all of our failures to advance the code ahead of the adoption rate.  The evidence of failure is that there is the sense of a necessity of a vote with a winning side and a losing side.

This has been discussed to death.  The limit was intended to prevent blockchain spam, not create an artificial bottleneck to limit legitimate transactions and force legitimate users off-chain, which is the effect it's going to have if it isn't raised.  

We agree on this, except I wouldn't use the words "force legitimate users off-chain" and would favor "make microtransactions uneconomical".
A limit is not pointless, if we crash into it and create a scarcity market for transactions, the result is only this:
Everyone that bought or mined bitcoin today has done so with the current code and has received that for which they paid.
For this, MP is not wrong any more than all of us are.  We may all have different expectations as to what may happen in the future, but we buy or mine when we do, based on the current code.


The task before us all now, is to create a code base that will incentivise the next set of people and money to do so... at least at the rate that bitcoin is inflating, and hopefully also to keep it growing before the swarms to come do damage to it irreparably. 
Where you and I diverge on opinion is that I am not yet happy with the current proposal to do so.  I hope for better, and sooner than 20 years from now.

[justusranvier]

except I wouldn't use the words "force legitimate users off-chain" and would favor "make microtransactions uneconomical".

That's a bad way of describing the problem, because it's not just "microtransactions" that are affected, and the result is not making them "uneconomical" - it's making them impossible.

An effective block size limit doesn't mean that some transactions get more expensive - it means all the transactions which are allowd to be process become more expensive and the rest are prohibited entirely (right up until Bitcoin becomes so completely unfit for purpose that it's abandoned entirely)

[NewLiberty]

On my side, I won't even try to double my coins, will just keep my coins valid in both chains, and wait until the battle is over before moving my ass  

This adversity to risk may also be echoed by pools, who can restrict the blocks to <1MB indefinitely if they so choose.  The fork doesn't happen until a >1MB block hits the chain.

We could very well have a scarcity market for transactions for a period of time regardless of the merit (or lack of merit) in the proposal.  Miners may simply wait along with sardokan until there is some better assurance that creating a block isn't going to be invalidated, or that mining on it is going to end up on an orphan chain.

[NewLiberty]

except I wouldn't use the words "force legitimate users off-chain" and would favor "make microtransactions uneconomical".

That's a bad way of describing the problem, because it's not just "microtransactions" that are affected, and the result is not making them "uneconomical" - it's making them impossible.

An effective block size limit doesn't mean that some transactions get more expensive - it means all the transactions which are allowd to be process become more expensive and the rest are prohibited entirely (right up until Bitcoin becomes so completely unfit for purpose that it's abandoned entirely)

Not impossible, uneconomical.  A high fee microtransaction would be included.
Fees will still vary.  I purposely left "microtransactions" undefined there.  
Zero fee transactions still get into blocks today.  Old coins still get preference.  
What we would lose for sure in a scarcity market for transactions is the small TX with new coins, low fee, at high volume.

[DooMAD]

it means all the transactions which are allowd to be process become more expensive and the rest are prohibited entirely

Entirely?   

Please expand or point to a post where this is explained further...  thnx 

To put it simply, if Bitcoin, right now, had even a tenth of the amount of users of one of the major credit card companies with a 1MB limit, it would be like trying to squeeze an entire novel into a twitter post.  Only a small amount will make it in.

People sending large transactions with large fees will make it into a block just fine, but even people sending moderate amounts, like $10 or $20 with moderate fees will be left waiting for space in a block or forced to go off-chain and trust a third party.  There definitely won't be room for anything smaller than that. 

[justusranvier]

it means all the transactions which are allowd to be process become more expensive and the rest are prohibited entirely

Prohibited entirely?  

Please expand or point to a post where this is explained further...  thnx  

A 1 MB block size allows for about 250000 transactions per day.

Suppose that today 260000 people wanted to create a transactions.

At least 10000 of those transactions wouldn't happen. Maybe they'd be the 10000 transactions that paid the least in fees.

Perhaps tomorrow if only 230000 people want to use Bitcoin, then the 10000 transactions from today that didn't make it in will get processed late.

On the other hand, what if another 260000 people want to use Bitcoin tomorrow too?

In that case there will be 10000 transactions that are prohibited tomorrow, as well as the same 10000 transactions that were prohibited today.

Over the course of two days, 20000 people who wanted to use Bitcoin were not allowed to do so, and regardless how much everybody pays there will always be 20000 people who can't use Bitcoin.

If all 260000 people were willing to pay a $1, $10, $1000, or $1000000 equivalent transaction fee, still 10000 transactions will be excluded.

[davout]

except I wouldn't use the words "force legitimate users off-chain" and would favor "make microtransactions uneconomical".

That's a bad way of describing the problem, because it's not just "microtransactions" that are affected, and the result is not making them "uneconomical" - it's making them impossible.

An effective block size limit doesn't mean that some transactions get more expensive - it means all the transactions which are allowd to be process become more expensive and the rest are prohibited entirely (right up until Bitcoin becomes so completely unfit for purpose that it's abandoned entirely)

Certainly not. And it'll be pretty obvious once you get around to answering this, you weaseled out of it one time, but the question isn't going anywhere and still stands.

[justusranvier]

you weaseled out of it

If we're going to turn this into a mudslinging fight, there's a goldmine of character references, as well as case studies in "weaseling out" available in this thread:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=167215.0

Just note that while it doesn't bother me to play your argument-by-insult throwing game, I only do so on a time-available basis when there's not something more important to work on.

[NxtChg]

http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2015/03/10/secretive-bitcoin-startup-21-reveals-record-funds-hints-at-mass-consumer-play/

How does MP's fortune stacks up against $116 M? And it's only one business.

Tell me again, how the majority has no money and doesn't matter.

1. No mass consumer => no businesses and investors.
2. No businesses and investors => nobody pays miners.
3. ? ? ?
4. PROFIT!!!

[Cryddit]

Does anyone else find it sad, a bit depressing, that this thread has once again devolved into conflicts of personalities instead of ideas?

(Raises hand)  Me.  I find it sad and depressing.

I don't like the current proposal, it is a decent guess, but it doesn't solve the problem.  It is a patch only.  It takes tremendous hubris to imagine that anyone knows what will happen with Bitcoin transaction volumes in 20 years.

It doesn't try to project bitcoin transaction volumes for 20 years.  What it's trying to project is what's the size of the biggest block that *won't* constitute a dangerous attack on the block chain for 20 years.  IOW, if we wind up filling this size block at some point because of transaction volume, that's an interesting and sort of unexpected development.  If we *don't* wind up needing this space for transaction volume, and some miner for inscrutable purposes chooses to publish blocks this size anyway, then these limits are expected to prevent such a miner from being a threat to the bitcoin system.

What it's trying to project is what's the *capacity* for bandwidth for the next 20 years, not because this bandwidth will definitely all be needed for tx but because with this bandwidth will enable nodes to handle blocks this size if necessary without breaking under the strain.  

[justusranvier]

Does it make a difference security-wise to wait for this^^^ to become the norm before increasing the limit?

I don't think it's possible to give a reasonable answer to that question yet.

Before I can talk to you about how transaction rate does and does not affect security, we both need a common understanding about what Bitcoin security means the what, why, and, how of the factors that affect it.

I've noticed that common understanding does not exist in the Bitcoin community in general.

I've also noticed that there's no single I reference I can point to which establishes it.

So I guess I have to write that too.