Bitcoin 20MB Fork

[davout]

Then sue

Haha, seriously?

one could easily come up to their place and *insert action*.

Bitcointalk, inhabited by this very special brand of geniuses...

[1714806773]

1714806773

[1714806773]

1714806773

[1714806773]

1714806773

[1714806773]

1714806773

[1714806773]

1714806773

[DooMAD]

It's been a pleasure watching DP and Davout slap you forkers around all over this thread.

Which thread have you been watching?

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.

This isn't scaremongering.  If you still haven't understood the multiple posts explaining exactly what will happen when transactions don't make it into the blocks because they're full, then you need to learn how this system actually works.  I'll repeat one of them in case:

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.

Start GavinCoin and let it try to compete with SatoshiCoin.

Yes, we will, that's why we're having a fork.  Again, which thread have you been watching? 

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".

No, that's where you lose the debate.  Bitcoin's value is that everyone gets to write into the ledger and the fork will ensure that ideal is maintained.  Why would anyone want to use a system that doesn't allow them to write into the ledger?  A system that guarantees security for the few but forces risk and uncertainty onto the many?  A system that won't process transactions quickly unless you're paying a huge fee?  No one is going to settle for a second-tier service because a bunch of elitists think they're better than everyone else.

[davout]

No one is going to settle for a second-tier service because a bunch of elitists think they're better than everyone else.

Said the guy crammed in an economy-class seat.

[Lauda]

Then sue

Haha, seriously?

Bitcointalk, inhabited by this very special brand of geniuses...

Why not?

@Guess why Satoshi is in the dark.    You never know who you might encounter.. With that "attack" you will be openly provoking anyone who sided with the fork. Don't expect people to be good to you after doing evil deeds.
It is interesting that such sentences are coming from the anti brigade though.

[DooMAD]

No one is going to settle for a second-tier service because a bunch of elitists think they're better than everyone else.

Said the guy crammed in an economy-class seat.

The economy-class seats don't arrive at the destination later than the business-class seats.  If they did, no one would settle for that either.  People would fly with a different airline that isn't stupid enough to think they'd keep customers with that kind of attitude.

[davout]

The economy-class seats don't arrive at the destination later than the business-class seats.

Actually they do, because business class gets to hop off first.

[Lauda]

The economy-class seats don't arrive at the destination later than the business-class seats.

Actually they do, because business class gets to hop off first.

It's uncommon to see a staff member this much involved in a single thread. Luckily you only moderate a single local board.
You're pretty much trying to crush someones argument in a very irrational way. Again, why are you opposing the fork so much?
Are you trying to get into the next group of rich people?

[RoadStress]

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

I am comparing bitcoin to any software evolution since Bitcoin IS a software first of all. It is a software that is in its early days. ALL software evolve and will have higher hardware requirements until they reach an equilibrium of code optimization and hardware capabilities. Bitcoin hasn't reached that equilibrium since it's only ~6 years old. Let it evolve!

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...

You just proved my point. Let's get deeper into this. Remember that nobody is forcing you to buy a new iPhone. You could still use the old ones if you don't upgrade and you can still make calls with a Nokia 1100. This is what we need to happen with Bitcoin too.

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...

Care to explain why? I see it as wasted time since we can have checkpoints and we can always revert to any setting to avoid problems. We could always decrease the blocksize if we really can't handle bigger blocks. Waiting for the hardware = wasted development time.

Edit:

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.

Quoted for future laughs and for putting salt on pain!

[davout]

why are you opposing the fork so much?

Because it is my considered opinion that Bitcoin is perfect as it is and that it doesn't need to be "fixed" to provide tremendous value to humanity at large.

[DooMAD]

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

I am comparing bitcoin to any software evolution since Bitcoin IS a software first of all. It is a software that is in its early days. ALL software evolve and will have higher hardware requirements until they reach an equilibrium of code optimization and hardware capabilities. Bitcoin hasn't reached that equilibrium since it's only ~6 years old. Let it evolve!

He can compare it to an airline and think that makes sense, though.  
You can't expect a rational argument from people who are clutching at straws in a desperate attempt to make it look like they've got a leg to stand on.

The economy-class seats don't arrive at the destination later than the business-class seats.

Actually they do, because business class gets to hop off first.

Just admit it was a terrible analogy, already.  

why are you opposing the fork so much?

Because it is my considered opinion that Bitcoin is perfect as it is and that it doesn't need to be "fixed" to provide tremendous value to humanity at large.

Finally the truth comes out!  An honest answer to a simple question.  You've got yours and fuck everyone else.  That's all it boils down to.

[davout]

You just proved my point. Let's get deeper into this. Remember that nobody is forcing you to buy a new iPhone. You could still use the old ones if you don't upgrade and you can still make calls with a Nokia 1100. This is what we need to happen with Bitcoin too.

The GSM network didn't need to "evolve" for iPhones to be able to function properly, in the very same way the core backbone that is Bitcoin doesn't need to be "fixed" with hardcoded exponential growth to allow innovation.

Care to explain why? I see it as wasted time since we can have checkpoints and we can always revert to any setting to avoid problems. We could always decrease the blocksize if we really can't handle bigger blocks. Waiting for the hardware = wasted development time.

You cannot be intellectually honest and claim that it is easier to revert to a previous version of something if you realize you fucked up than to fix problems when you actually have had an opportunity to actually witness and analyze them.

[davout]

Just admit it was a terrible analogy, already.  

Yes, it is a terrible analogy.
Then again, Bitcoin doesn't really suffer any analogies at all.

[RoadStress]

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.

This is interesting. Is this really true? If we fork we will need to have mandatory >1MB blocks? Everything else will be orphaned?

The GSM network didn't need to "evolve" for iPhones to be able to function properly, in the very same way the core backbone that is Bitcoin doesn't need to be "fixed" with hardcoded exponential growth to allow innovation.

Again with pointless arguments instead of something constructive.

The GSM network evolved to support the gazzilions of iPhones that are using it. The GSM network isn't a limited network where you have to bid your place in order to use it. Was this your best argument?

You cannot be intellectually honest and claim that it is easier to revert to a previous version of something if you realize you fucked up than to fix problems when you actually have had an opportunity to actually witness and analyze them.

I didn't said that it's easier, but you know the truth that Bitcoin has some failover mechanism in place in case something goes wrong. Be is a vulnerability of any kind or a hard fork the failover systems are there.

Also hitting the hardware limits would be spotted very soon until the point that there is an actual problem. It's not something that can go wrong overnight. So yes I think that you actually aren't honest at all if you deliberately choose to ignore Bitcoin the failover systems.

[onemorexmr]

Also hitting the hardware limits would be spotted very soon until the point that there is an actual problem. It's not something that can go wrong overnight. So yes I think that you actually aren't honest at all if you deliberately choose to ignore Bitcoin the failover systems.

a decentralized system should not rely on a centralized failover. its good that its there, but i can't accept this as an argument to "try out things"

[RoadStress]

a decentralized system should not rely on a centralized failover. its good that its there, but i can't accept this as an argument to "try out things"

How do you propose that we build an better/perfect financial system to replace the current one? By not making any change?

Also I think that you missed the part that hitting the hardware limits would be spotted very soon and we can make the necessary changes to not be a real problem anymore. If the network can't handle big blocks then we can create smaller blocks. It is not mandatory that we create huge blocks all the time.

[davout]

This is interesting. Is this really true? If we fork we will need to have mandatory >1MB blocks? Everything else will be orphaned?

Lol no, he's referring to block version numbers. How can you even imagine such nonsense as "every block <1mb is invalid" ?

the truth that Bitcoin has some failover mechanism in place in case something goes wrong

What would that be? Obamacare?

[davout]

Also I think that you missed the part that hitting the hardware limits would be spotted very soon and we can make the necessary changes to not be a real problem anymore. If the network can't handle big blocks then we can create smaller blocks. It is not mandatory that we create huge blocks all the time.

Lol, wtf is this brain damaged logic where "it's ok to deliberately make things weak and broken, because as soon as it becomes a problem, we can repair it" ?

[R2D221]

You just proved my point. Let's get deeper into this. Remember that nobody is forcing you to buy a new iPhone. You could still use the old ones if you don't upgrade and you can still make calls with a Nokia 1100. This is what we need to happen with Bitcoin too.

The GSM network didn't need to "evolve" for iPhones to be able to function properly, in the very same way the core backbone that is Bitcoin doesn't need to be "fixed" with hardcoded exponential growth to allow innovation.

But what about 4G? Why was it created if everything was working perfectly before that?

[onemorexmr]

a decentralized system should not rely on a centralized failover. its good that its there, but i can't accept this as an argument to "try out things"

How do you propose that we build an better/perfect financial system to replace the current one? By not making any change?

Also I think that you missed the part that hitting the hardware limits would be spotted very soon and we can make the necessary changes to not be a real problem anymore. If the network can't handle big blocks then we can create smaller blocks. It is not mandatory that we create huge blocks all the time.

i didnt say we should not make changes. in fact i am in favor of bigger blocks (heck even unlimited; let the miners decide)

but my problem with the current proposal is that i think we need an incentive for miners to make smaller blocks. they have that incentive atm but with 1BLT/headers first it is vastly reduced.

i dont want that incentive because of hardware limits. i want that because i think we need a fee based market in the future which gets destroyed if there is no penalty for miners making bigger blocks.

i'd love to see a proposal which would do the following (just an example; numbers just fallen out of my head):
 - if a miner makes a block bigger than 1mb he cant collect the whole reward/fees
 - the part of the reward which the miner could not claim should be distributed to nodes (a way i can imagine to do this is that the first node relaying a transaction encodes his address in it and gets a part of the reward)

sadly i lack the skills to really make a bip out of it (or to even outline how it can really work)

btw davout was the person who pointed that out to me originally; but i think he is right on this one.

[davout]

But what about 4G? Why was it created if everything was working perfectly before that?

You're right on this one, shitty analogy.