Bitcoin 20MB Fork

[onemorexmr]

you think mpcoin will win, because you think the economic majority is on mpex. i dont think so.

Bitcoin is exquisitely engineered to provide all manner of leverage to those defending against hostile forks.  It is beyond ultra-conservative; it is unapologetically royalist and reactionary.

MP and his Knights Of Satoshi will be fighting a downhill battle to secure the network, with the sun blinding the enemy and the invisible hand obliterating the aggressors faster than they can retreat.

"In Winterfell 500 men can hold out against 10,000." -Ned Stark

why do you think the other side doesnt take this issue at heart and fight for it too?

[1714054761]

1714054761

[1714054761]

1714054761

[1714054761]

1714054761

[iCEBREAKER]

you think mpcoin will win, because you think the economic majority is on mpex. i dont think so.

Bitcoin is exquisitely engineered to provide all manner of leverage to those defending against hostile forks.  It is beyond ultra-conservative; it is unapologetically royalist and reactionary.

MP and his Knights Of Satoshi will be fighting a downhill battle to secure the network, with the sun blinding the enemy and the invisible hand obliterating the aggressors faster than they can retreat.

"In Winterfell 500 men can hold out against 10,000." -Ned Stark

why do you think the other side doesnt take this issue at heart and fight for it too?

I never said Team Gavin doesn't take this issue to heart, nor that they won't also fight for their pretender Fork's ascendence to the throne.

But the contours of the battlefield favor the defender.  GigaBloatCoin's attack surface is orders of magnitude larger than sweet little Bitcoin's.

EG: MP's doublespend exploit weapon is devastating and AFAIK no counter to it has been proposed.

This is all exactly as Lord Satoshi intended.  The patient, wise, and strong will feast on the hubristic failures of the eager, greedy, and weak.

Remember, MP & Co. have the resources and expertise to play the long game and wage a Winter War against numerically superior GigaBloatCoiners.

GavinCoin may win a Pyrrhic victory, but only at tremendous expense and as the result of a potentially fatal Great Schism.

The only way to truly win this game is not to play.

[onemorexmr]

you think mpcoin will win, because you think the economic majority is on mpex. i dont think so.

Bitcoin is exquisitely engineered to provide all manner of leverage to those defending against hostile forks.  It is beyond ultra-conservative; it is unapologetically royalist and reactionary.

MP and his Knights Of Satoshi will be fighting a downhill battle to secure the network, with the sun blinding the enemy and the invisible hand obliterating the aggressors faster than they can retreat.

"In Winterfell 500 men can hold out against 10,000." -Ned Stark

why do you think the other side doesnt take this issue at heart and fight for it too?

I never said Team Gavin doesn't take this issue to heart, nor that they won't also fight for their pretender Fork's ascendence to the throne.

But the contours of the battlefield favor the defender.  GigaBloatCoin's attack surface is orders of magnitude larger than sweet little Bitcoin's.

EG: MP's doublespend exploit weapon is devastating and AFAIK no counter to it has been proposed.

This is all exactly as Lord Satoshi intended.  The patient, wise, and strong will feast on the hubristic failures of the eager, greedy, and weak.

Remember, MP & Co. have the resources and expertise to play the long game and wage a Winter War against numerically superior GigaBloatCoiners.

GavinCoin may win a Pyrrhic victory, but only at tremendous expense and as the result of a potentially fatal Great Schism.

you mad me laugh
but still.. we will see. as i said i will just keep my bitcoins and see what happens. so from a monetary point of view there is not much that can happen to me (except that there is a timeframe where i cant use them...but hodling)

The only way to truly win this game is not to play.

yes, thats true.
both sides have much to loose. but i like to go with bitcoin as intended by satoshi (-> bigger blocks)

btw eduffield has written recently that he has solved the bloat problem? do you know how?

[iCEBREAKER]

you mad me laugh
but still.. we will see. as i said i will just keep my bitcoins and see what happens. so from a monetary point of view there is not much that can happen to me (except that there is a timeframe where i cant use them...but hodling)

The only way to truly win this game is not to play.

yes, thats true.
both sides have much to loose. but i like to go with bitcoin as intended by satoshi (-> bigger blocks)

btw eduffield has written recently that he has solved the bloat problem? do you know how?

Oh yes, we will see.  You all are invited to my house for wine/beer/popcorn to watch when the Great Schism begins!   

Satoshi intended bigger blocks, but we have no metric beyond guesswork to estimate a suitable magnitude of how much bigger.

Once we have actual experience with persistently full blocks, then we may better decide by how much/whether to increase their size.

Duffman's way to solve the bloat problem is to alienate most of his coin's users by suddenly forcing an unwelcome name/brand change.

J/K.  His actual approach is even worse.  He wants to use a 'two-tier' (IE trustful/semi-centralized) network to achieve scaling, thus recreating the security hole that Bitcoin so ingeniously obviated: http://nakamotoinstitute.org/trusted-third-parties/

That approach is great for consumer retail applications and potentially provides a great substitute for precious BTC blockspace.

But as a store-of-value, it's a complete fail.

[Realpra]

The amount of damage the notion of Democracy has done to human kindness and ethics may be incalculable.

I'm not saying I'm right because 60% support the 20mb chain, I'm saying I'm right because Bitcoin won't WORK without a 20mb chain.

What I am then also saying that 20%/40% of people opposed/agnostic is too small to be a road block so we don't have to care.

I would still use the 20mb chain even if only 10-20% made the upgrade - eventually all would follow anyway.

[cbeast]

... tyfu

You edit my objections, you aren't fooling anybody. Let's forget all that. I want to hijack this thread a moment. I posit that TOR is nothing but an experimental gimmick to offer obfuscation, nothing more and that HD wallets are a better solution for Bitcooin transactions. Sure, cryptonote and other signing schemes also add obfuscation, but HD wallets give you the ability to use different addresses for every transaction. This serves to cast doubt about the ownership of keys. You still want to use obfuscation schemes to hide your IP address perhaps, but payment channels can exist in many types of protocols. They are small enough bandwidth that they could be handled by any radio freq mesh, satellite, or even ELF. They can be acoustical, steganographic, or polarized. There are no limits to the types of obfuscation schemes for payment channels. As long as they are hidden, the HD wallet can do the rest.

[hdbuck]

POS? really?

Not sure what you mean by "POS",  (the 4x and 10x is based upon blocks per 10 mins).

i meant, how dare you compare POS cryptos with bitcoin (POW)?

lets compare the comparable, not apple and oranges^TM ^^

but its a good start if you consider these alts more suitable for coffee breaks.

[davout]

... tyfu

You edit my objections, you aren't fooling anybody. Let's forget all that. I want to hijack this thread a moment. I posit that TOR is nothing but an experimental gimmick to offer obfuscation, nothing more and that HD wallets are a better solution for Bitcooin transactions. Sure, cryptonote and other signing schemes also add obfuscation, but HD wallets give you the ability to use different addresses for every transaction. This serves to cast doubt about the ownership of keys. You still want to use obfuscation schemes to hide your IP address perhaps, but payment channels can exist in many types of protocols. They are small enough bandwidth that they could be handled by any radio freq mesh, satellite, or even ELF. They can be acoustical, steganographic, or polarized. There are no limits to the types of obfuscation schemes for payment channels. As long as they are hidden, the HD wallet can do the rest.

I think you misunderstand.
I don't really care for this point about Tor myself, but from what I understand it's not that *users* should be able to hide behind Tor, what is being argued is that *miners* should be able to do so. And the argument is that it becomes much more difficult with a bigger block size.

[cbeast]

... tyfu

You edit my objections, you aren't fooling anybody. Let's forget all that. I want to hijack this thread a moment. I posit that TOR is nothing but an experimental gimmick to offer obfuscation, nothing more and that HD wallets are a better solution for Bitcooin transactions. Sure, cryptonote and other signing schemes also add obfuscation, but HD wallets give you the ability to use different addresses for every transaction. This serves to cast doubt about the ownership of keys. You still want to use obfuscation schemes to hide your IP address perhaps, but payment channels can exist in many types of protocols. They are small enough bandwidth that they could be handled by any radio freq mesh, satellite, or even ELF. They can be acoustical, steganographic, or polarized. There are no limits to the types of obfuscation schemes for payment channels. As long as they are hidden, the HD wallet can do the rest.

I think you misunderstand.
I don't really care for this point about Tor myself, but from what I understand it's not that *users* should be able to hide behind Tor, what is being argued is that *miners* should be able to do so. And the argument is that it becomes much more difficult with a bigger block size.

I am 100% for users to obfuscate. I am 100% against miners using it. Having said that TOR mining wouldn't be desirable for commercial mining anyway. Centralized open competitive mining is optimum for consumer protection and global participation.

[davout]

I am 100% for users to obfuscate. I am 100% against miners using it. Having said that TOR mining wouldn't be desirable for commercial mining anyway. Centralized open competitive mining is optimum for consumer protection and global participation.

Why do you think it isn't a good thing that miners mine anonymously? (Not implying that Tor is safe btw)
Do you not think it makes Bitcoin more censorship-resistant?

Do you remember the aborted CoinValidation startup? (The one that basically wanted to make a business of destroying Bitcoin's fungibility by wanting to blacklist certain categories of coins on opaque criteria)

Do you think it is good that miners are only a handful of identified entities that governments can pressure to refuse to process transactions on criteria other than economic ones?

[hdbuck]

bitcoin's censorship-resistance is just a derived attribute from its antifragility.

whatever happens will only make it stronger.

[cbeast]

I am 100% for users to obfuscate. I am 100% against miners using it. Having said that TOR mining wouldn't be desirable for commercial mining anyway. Centralized open competitive mining is optimum for consumer protection and global participation.

Why do you think it isn't a good thing that miners mine anonymously? (Not implying that Tor is safe btw)
Do you not think it makes Bitcoin more censorship-resistant?

Do you remember the aborted CoinValidation startup? (The one that basically wanted to make a business of destroying Bitcoin's fungibility by wanting to blacklist certain categories of coins on opaque criteria)

Do you think it is good that miners are only a handful of identified entities that governments can pressure to refuse to process transactions on criteria other than economic ones?

It's more likely Bitcoin mining will become part of many government budgets (or contractors) so they can set mining fees for taxes.

[hdbuck]

I am 100% for users to obfuscate. I am 100% against miners using it. Having said that TOR mining wouldn't be desirable for commercial mining anyway. Centralized open competitive mining is optimum for consumer protection and global participation.

Why do you think it isn't a good thing that miners mine anonymously? (Not implying that Tor is safe btw)
Do you not think it makes Bitcoin more censorship-resistant?

Do you remember the aborted CoinValidation startup? (The one that basically wanted to make a business of destroying Bitcoin's fungibility by wanting to blacklist certain categories of coins on opaque criteria)

Do you think it is good that miners are only a handful of identified entities that governments can pressure to refuse to process transactions on criteria other than economic ones?

It's more likely Bitcoin mining will become part of many government budgets (or contractors) so they can set mining fees for taxes.

as far as i am concern, they can always tax ripple.

edit: or create a 'taxcoin' cuz, ya know, it would be a shame not to investigate the 'underlying technology'

[RoadStress]

Why don't we just remove the limit altogether and let the miners decide the blocksize? They've been doing that anyway so instead of an arbitrary cap, just let the market decide?

Because this:

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.

From my understanding of how a hard fork works then the miners will decide. Why do you keep sucking on MP's cock?

Correct me if I am wrong.

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.

A friendly reminder for everyone: iCEBREAKER is the one that shilled extremely hard pro HashFast a failed venture who scammed thousand of customers of their money promising unreal stuff! It would be a mistake to think that he is out for the good of everyone. Most of the people in Hardware forum have him on ignore because of his way of being.

Do you remember the aborted CoinValidation startup? (The one that basically wanted to make a business of destroying Bitcoin's fungibility by wanting to blacklist certain categories of coins on opaque criteria)

Do you think it is good that miners are only a handful of identified entities that governments can pressure to refuse to process transactions on criteria other than economic ones?

At first I thought having green or black lists was a bad thing. After more thinking I came to the conclusion that the future WILL have them. They will be needed just like we have black and green IP lists. This isn't wrong and it will have a minimal impact on the majority.

[davout]

Correct me if I am wrong.

Miners follow the money. If doing what they're told is a net profit then they will follow.

At first I thought having green or black lists was a bad thing. After more thinking I came to the conclusion that the future WILL have them. They will be needed just like we have black and green IP lists. This isn't wrong and it will have a minimal impact on the majority.

So it's ok if some unrelated party decides whether you get to spend your own money ?
So it's also ok if someone decides to prevent you from transacting because your coins have a history that you may or may not be responsible for ?

[hdbuck]

Mindblown. Cant belive what im reading. Please stop the  'more thinking'. Statist.

[sickpig]

At first I thought having green or black lists was a bad thing. After more thinking I came to the conclusion that the future WILL have them. They will be needed just like we have black and green IP lists. This isn't wrong and it will have a minimal impact on the majority.

Fungibility is an essential characteristic of money. Actually bitcoin hasn't a perfect fungibility due to the nature of the blockchain.

Marking/listing coins will definitely remove it from bitcoin and this is not a "good thing" ^TM, no matter of much thoughts you put into it.

[RoadStress]

Correct me if I am wrong.

Miners follow the money. If doing what they're told is a net profit then they will follow.

Sure, but the miners will decide no matter what. MP is spreading false information/lies.

At first I thought having green or black lists was a bad thing. After more thinking I came to the conclusion that the future WILL have them. They will be needed just like we have black and green IP lists. This isn't wrong and it will have a minimal impact on the majority.

So it's ok if some unrelated party decides whether you get to spend your own money ?
So it's also ok if someone decides to prevent you from transacting because your coins have a history that you may or may not be responsible for ?

It is not ok but due to the nature of HD wallets I would like to see how will that be enforced.

Fungibility is an essential characteristic of money. Actually bitcoin hasn't a perfect fungibility due to the nature of the blockchain.
Marking/listing coins will definitely remove it from bitcoin and this is not a "good thing" ^TM, no matter of much thoughts you put into it.

Dollars are used to fund lots of shady stuff, but I don't see anyone blocking me to use them because before me they were in "bad-guys hands".

You and davout don't seem to see a business 2 business potential use of white/black lists while I see lots of potentials. Don't try to enforce your limited and personal vision to everyone else! There are plenty of cases where business could benefit from this and I don't see a way to force it to regular users. There will be businesses that will want to have their address white listed because their activity history will be available on the blockchain and this will make them get a load much easier since they can't alter the books. This is just one example (since you are too lazy to think of any or just refuse), but there are much more uses to this.

So we can have them both and have everyone happy. Since miners will follow the money I am sure that they can find ways to avoid this and that this will not impact them at all. Nobody can force them to mine on a single address!

[NewLiberty]

I am 100% for users to obfuscate. I am 100% against miners using it. Having said that TOR mining wouldn't be desirable for commercial mining anyway. Centralized open competitive mining is optimum for consumer protection and global participation.

It provokes the honest question of: How exposed would you want mining to be? 

Should they all register with their local military authority? 
Or put another way: Is it necessarily a "business" and subject to MTL?

I am certainly not suggesting that anyone do anything criminal at all.  In jurisdictions where the local authority forbids an action (or does so by regulating it into unprofitability), it is just better to be elsewhere if you can be.  However, the real estate where one is not disadvantaged by conducting Bitcoin mining, or exposing oneself to theft under color of law and forfeitures... that real estate is dwindling.  There are few such jurisdictions remaining.

As it turns out, only those who simply mine and hold (satoshi) are in the clear on this matter. 

I'd see TOR fixed rather than impinge Bitcoin, but the "Keep Bitcoin Free" folks' points on this matter are interesting nonetheless.  The fork does signal the end of an important part of privacy for Bitcoin mining, so those miners who do desire such privacy, or happen to be an a particularly onerous jurisdiction have the choice of quitting Bitcoin mining, or staying on the 1MB chain.

Bitcoin Mining in China:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8kua5B5K3I

[onemorexmr]

Just my 2c about blacklists: As soon as they are a reality bitcoin will be dead.
Money needs to be fungible, everything else is nonsense.