onemorexmr
|
|
March 10, 2015, 06:16:59 PM |
|
Sorry for repeating myself, but you are bringing up previously refuted points:
just because you have another opinion does not mean the point is refuted. of course mp can bribe miners (i even outlined in this thread how he could do this): but this doesn't change the fact that its THEIR decision...
|
|
|
|
davout
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1372
Merit: 1008
1davout
|
|
March 10, 2015, 06:40:53 PM |
|
Just note that while it doesn't bother me to play your argument-by-insult throwing game
It does seem to bother you to share your position regarding the particular question at hand.
|
|
|
|
sed
|
|
March 10, 2015, 08:32:30 PM |
|
I saw a post on one of the bitcoin news sites the other day talking about gavin's discussion at mitbitcoinclub and they were saying that he still says a hard-fork to increase transaction size is in the works. That he thinks it won't be in the next version but possibly could be in the one after. That he has to achieve consensus on with the "5 core developers" which have push access to the git repo.
|
|
|
|
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2156
Merit: 1072
Crypto is the separation of Power and State.
|
|
March 10, 2015, 08:36:09 PM |
|
It's difficult to understand the exponential nature of the network effect without a visual aide, since humans don't intuitively understand exponential functions. 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. Competing blockchains are not "fragmented." They are linked through exchanges, and soon by SuperNet/Blocknet type interconnections. Your illustration is extremely simplistic. I think you know enough economics to realize that. If not, please educate yourself on the related concepts of diseconomies of scale and negative marginal return. Because more is different.
|
██████████ ██████████████████ ██████████████████████ ██████████████████████████ ████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████ ████████████████████████████████ ████████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████████ ████████████████████████████████ ██████████████ ██████████████ ████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████ ██████████████████████ ██████████████████ ██████████ Monero
|
| "The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy." David Chaum 1996 "Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect." Adam Back 2014
|
| | |
|
|
|
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2156
Merit: 1072
Crypto is the separation of Power and State.
|
|
March 10, 2015, 08:38:34 PM |
|
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)
Abandoned entirely? There you go again, mongering DOOOOM without basis in fact to scare people into a panic so they will accept GigaBloat in haste. If you don't believe Bitcoin is antifragile, sell your coins and GTFO. Start GavinCoin and let it try to compete with SatoshiCoin. It's been a pleasure watching DP and Davout slap you forkers around all over this thread. This is the the crux of the matter, and where the pro-bloat side lose the debate: The true value that Bitcoin brings to the table is not "everyone gets to write into the holy ledger", it is instead "everyone gets to benefit from sane and non-inflationary financial instutions whose sanity and honesty are ensured by the holy blockchain".
|
██████████ ██████████████████ ██████████████████████ ██████████████████████████ ████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████ ████████████████████████████████ ████████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████████████ ████████████████████████████████ ██████████████ ██████████████ ████████████████████████████ ██████████████████████████ ██████████████████████ ██████████████████ ██████████ Monero
|
| "The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy." David Chaum 1996 "Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect." Adam Back 2014
|
| | |
|
|
|
onemorexmr
|
|
March 10, 2015, 08:41:57 PM |
|
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)
Abandoned entirely? There you go again, mongering DOOOOM without basis in fact to scare people into a panic so they will accept GigaBloat in haste. If you don't believe Bitcoin is antifragile, sell your coins and GTFO. Start GavinCoin and let it try to compete with SatoshiCoin. It's been a pleasure watching DP and Davout slap you forkers around all over this thread. This is the the crux of the matter, and where the pro-bloat side lose the debate: The true value that Bitcoin brings to the table is not "everyone gets to write into the holy ledger", it is instead "everyone gets to benefit from sane and non-inflationary financial instutions whose sanity and honesty are ensured by the holy blockchain".
if all day-to-day transactions are offchain we might just abandon bitcoin and use gold certificates instead. but i do understand why exchanges and some btc-companies are interested in a small block size: they want to be our new banks...
|
|
|
|
R2D221
|
|
March 10, 2015, 08:42:54 PM |
|
It's difficult to understand the exponential nature of the network effect without a visual aide, since humans don't intuitively understand exponential functions. 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. Competing blockchains are not "fragmented." They are linked through exchanges, and soon by SuperNet/Blocknet type interconnections. Your illustration is extremely simplistic. I think you know enough economics to realize that. If not, please educate yourself on the related concepts of diseconomies of scale and negative marginal return. Because more is different. This is the network effect in graphical form. Diseconomies of scale have little to do with this concept.
|
An economy based on endless growth is unsustainable.
|
|
|
Lauda
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2674
Merit: 2965
Terminated.
|
|
March 10, 2015, 08:52:33 PM |
|
I saw a post on one of the bitcoin news sites the other day talking about gavin's discussion at mitbitcoinclub and they were saying that he still says a hard-fork to increase transaction size is in the works. That he thinks it won't be in the next version but possibly could be in the one after. That he has to achieve consensus on with the "5 core developers" which have push access to the git repo.
There is no reason not to go forward with the fork actually. The anti-fork brigade will probably be disregarded. I'm pretty sure that everyone will thank Gavin once the blocks go over 1MB.
|
"The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks" 😼 Bitcoin Core ( onion)
|
|
|
sed
|
|
March 10, 2015, 08:58:22 PM |
|
I saw a post on one of the bitcoin news sites the other day talking about gavin's discussion at mitbitcoinclub and they were saying that he still says a hard-fork to increase transaction size is in the works. That he thinks it won't be in the next version but possibly could be in the one after. That he has to achieve consensus on with the "5 core developers" which have push access to the git repo.
There is no reason not to go forward with the fork actually. The anti-fork brigade will probably be disregarded. I'm pretty sure that everyone will thank Gavin once the blocks go over 1MB. I haven't followed all the technical details but there was some pretty strong words about how the anti-fork brigade had a plan to attack the forked blockchain and it *seemed* reasonably scary what they were saying. Maybe it was overblown? Maybe some of those folks have come around now?
|
|
|
|
Cryddit
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 924
Merit: 1132
|
|
March 10, 2015, 09:14:08 PM |
|
I haven't followed all the technical details but there was some pretty strong words about how the anti-fork brigade had a plan to attack the forked blockchain and it *seemed* reasonably scary what they were saying. Maybe it was overblown? Maybe some of those folks have come around now?
Nope. But not to worry; if a fork actually happens, they will have no wherewithal to attack the new chain. If miners like the idea, they publish the new block version number in their headers. If they don't, they don't, and no fork happens. If 75% of the blocks mined in the last 1000 have the new block version number, the miners are free to make a >1Mb block. But nobody has to. It could be quite some time before an actual >1Mb block and subsequent fork happens. Anyway if a fork does happen at that point, the people who want to "attack" the block chain have, by procedure, less than 25% of the hashing power. Which flatly isn't enough to have a noticeable effect on the new block chain. If and when we reach the point where 95% of the blocks published in the last 1000 have the new block version number, then clients will start rejecting any blocks with the old block version number, and the fork will be enforced from that point onward whether the blocks formed are >1Mbyte or not. And if the fork happens at that point, the "attackers" are left with 5% or less of the hashing power, and the threat of an attack is sort of like pointing an unloaded BB gun at an elephant.
|
|
|
|
sed
|
|
March 10, 2015, 09:17:08 PM |
|
@cryddit, that's great info. Thanks for catching me up. This does seem like a very smart way to go about the fork. If the fork happens, it happens in a way that it can't be attacked easily; if it doesn't happen (because miners don't go for it) then it doesn't happen. Very cool.
|
|
|
|
davout
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1372
Merit: 1008
1davout
|
|
March 10, 2015, 09:18:04 PM |
|
If and when we reach the point where 95% of the blocks published in the last 1000 have the new block version number
That is, if someone with commit access doesn't change the requirement to, say, 60%. Because good reasons and won't you think of the children.
|
|
|
|
davout
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1372
Merit: 1008
1davout
|
|
March 10, 2015, 09:19:13 PM |
|
If the fork happens, it happens in a way that it can't be attacked easily;
Well, if it could be attacked easily it wouldn't really be bitcoin anymore anyway
|
|
|
|
onemorexmr
|
|
March 10, 2015, 09:19:48 PM |
|
If and when we reach the point where 95% of the blocks published in the last 1000 have the new block version number
That is, if someone with commit access doesn't change the requirement to, say, 60%. Because good reasons and won't you think of the children. if that would be his intention why do you think he made the 80% proposal in the first place? he could just have committed it and send out a warning message to all "urgent; please update"
|
|
|
|
Mikestang
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1274
Merit: 1000
|
|
March 10, 2015, 09:27:35 PM |
|
I saw a post on one of the bitcoin news sites the other day talking about gavin's discussion at mitbitcoinclub and they were saying that he still says a hard-fork to increase transaction size is in the works. That he thinks it won't be in the next version but possibly could be in the one after. That he has to achieve consensus on with the "5 core developers" which have push access to the git repo.
Just read that earlier today, here is the link: http://insidebitcoins.com/news/gavin-andresen-optimistic-about-scaling-bitcoin/30652“I’m actually, right now, working on just getting consensus among the five, what I call, core developers — the five developers who have push access to the git code. I think I’m getting close to convincing them that we have a plan that will work. I’m probably going to have to write some more code . . . I think we have a year to eighteen months. I would love the next release of bitcoin — the next major release, which will be sometime in the June timeframe — to have a scheduled hardfork to increase the block size in it. I probably won’t get there. It’ll probably be in the release after that, but we’ll see.”
|
|
|
|
Cryddit
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 924
Merit: 1132
|
|
March 10, 2015, 09:35:23 PM |
|
If and when we reach the point where 95% of the blocks published in the last 1000 have the new block version number
That is, if someone with commit access doesn't change the requirement to, say, 60%. Because good reasons and won't you think of the children. Why the hell would someone do that? Nobody wants a fork that can be attacked. We don't want it to happen until you and those who agree with you can be safely ignored.
|
|
|
|
justusranvier
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1400
Merit: 1013
|
|
March 10, 2015, 09:36:58 PM |
|
Competing blockchains are not "fragmented." They are linked through exchanges, and soon by SuperNet/Blocknet type interconnections.
Your illustration is extremely simplistic. I think you know enough economics to realize that. I wonder what that last section at the end of my most recent blog post means...
|
|
|
|
davout
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1372
Merit: 1008
1davout
|
|
March 10, 2015, 09:41:45 PM |
|
Why the hell would someone do that? Nobody wants a fork that can be attacked. We don't want it to happen until you and those who agree with you can be safely ignored.
That would be a way to force the fork, under the assumption that the threats are empty.
|
|
|
|
davout
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1372
Merit: 1008
1davout
|
|
March 10, 2015, 10:08:26 PM |
|
Why not a 49-3 ?
C'est l'idée
|
|
|
|
Lauda
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2674
Merit: 2965
Terminated.
|
|
March 10, 2015, 10:18:22 PM |
|
I haven't followed all the technical details but there was some pretty strong words about how the anti-fork brigade had a plan to attack the forked blockchain and it *seemed* reasonably scary what they were saying. Maybe it was overblown? Maybe some of those folks have come around now?
Why would this be scary? They've openly said that they would do it, right? You know their names, right? Then sue them for whatever you want. They do realize that when publicly exposed they are at risk, one could easily come up to their place and *insert action*. Anyhow I wouldn't be worried. First they've tried to win by using bad arguments, this failed so they've gotten a bit more offensive.
|
"The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks" 😼 Bitcoin Core ( onion)
|
|
|
|