Bitcoin 20MB Fork

[davout]

OK, I use the wrong words. You SHOULDN'T run a full node in a cellphone. Its battery will run out quickly and your bill will be enormous for the data use. If you'll leave your cellphone connected in a spot, never to be moved, then just install a computer there. Don't do such ridiculousness.

The point is that you do not need, and should not need, a dedicated high-end server.
If you can run it on a smartphone, even if you shouldn't, indicates you can easily run it on any desktop PC.

I agree. Word isn't designed to be used by everyone. Its price is also something most people can't afford.

This point works equally well with Open Office. And an office suite *is* designed to be as easy to use as possible.

[onemorexmr]

Unlike MP, you, and the rest of the three idiots, Gavin has the platform of Reddit, MIT, and all the news media outlet. You're relegated to this little room with me, and I will constantly remind everyone what a fucking moron you are.

A paid shill like you will have to share room with a paid troll like me 

what have you done for bitcoin if i may ask?

davout has done many things (eg paymium, staff on this forum) and i value his opinion even if i dont share it.

[R2D221]

OK, I use the wrong words. You SHOULDN'T run a full node in a cellphone. Its battery will run out quickly and your bill will be enormous for the data use. If you'll leave your cellphone connected in a spot, never to be moved, then just install a computer there. Don't do such ridiculousness.

The point is that you do not need, and should not need, a dedicated high-end server.
If you can run it on a smartphone, even if you shouldn't, indicates you can easily run it on any desktop PC.

Why should it not need a high-end server? How else are you willing to secure the network if not with high-end servers?

If you can run it on a smartphone, then the network is as weak as a smartphone (which are purposefully less powerful than desktops and laptops). I wouldn't trust my life savings to a smartphone-powered network.

I agree. Word isn't designed to be used by everyone. Its price is also something most people can't afford.

This point works equally well with Open Office. And an office suite *is* designed to be as easy to use as possible.

Microsoft Office and Open Office are different products with different goals. You shouldn't think they are the same.

Also, “as easy to use as possible” will never be equal to “usable by everyone”. You can't please everyone, and any developer knows (or should know) that.

[DooMAD]

No, the mistake was on my part. His offer is 750 bitcoin today for 1`000 USGavincoin in the future, which is essentially the same as trading 750 post-fork bitcoin for 250 USGavincoin. I might be willing to offer you a better deal, but I will not agree to "refund" in the case that the fork doesn't happen. That's the whole point of making this kind of agreement. I'd be betting that the fork is not successful, whether by being crushed on the market or by not ever happening. If you're really interested in buying some discounted coins, you had better get in the WoT.

Pitchman!

Are you trying to be funny? I'm "pitching" the very thing you claim to support.

I have not seen an argument against a larger block limit that uses facts. Your market forces will just have to deal with larger blocks.

Who the fuck would give MP money, are you batshit insane?

THIS  x 100 lol

How many people  even know who the fuck MP was/is ?
Or had ever heard of him before this forking argument ?

the blocks have to scale up for the system to remain usable

THE END

Perhaps the whole thing was just to get a bunch of attention for their little IRC channel.  If they have an audience they can pretend their opinions actually count for something and they're not just having a little circle-jerk.  It's not like people are going to want to interact with them because they're decent human beings or anything, so they have to make a load of drama out of nothing to try and get some attention.  "Look at us, we're important decision makers, honest!  Come listen to our dogma and worship at the feet of the elite".



Ignore them and hopefully they'll go away.

Their argument has been backwards from the start anyway.  They're saying that Gavin wants to change the way Bitcoin works and that he needs to justify that change.  But in reality, Gavin is only making sure Bitcoin continues to work in the same way it works now and always has done.  It's the anti-fork crowd that need to justify forcing full blocks onto everyone and the only reason they can come up with is that it guarantees security for them and no one else matters.  If you want an open system that's available for anyone to use, you'll support the fork.  If you only want Bitcoin to benefit early adopters and risk driving everyone else away, you'll oppose the fork.

[danielpbarron]

Unlike MP, you, and the rest of the three idiots, Gavin has the platform of Reddit, MIT, and all the news media outlet. You're relegated to this little room with me, and I will constantly remind everyone what a fucking moron you are.

A paid shill like you will have to share room with a paid troll like me  

Hypocrite.

Also: reddit, MIT, and "all the news media" are of the old system -- you know, the thing bitcoin is here to destroy? Who is it that pays you to troll? Uncle Sam perhaps? I suspect that is the force behind much of the noise on this forum.

What I am reading from this offer is that you pay 3 MPcoin for every Gavincoin bought from MP. Not impressive.

I asked, and you are correct. My bad.

Good. Hopefully he will make a new public offer in the range of 750 current BTC in exchange for something like 3000 future gavincoins (1 mpcoin == 3 gavincoins).

With a fixed refund date where he gives back the 750 BTC + a small interest if the fork does not happen.

I don't know if I understood the entire subtext to this one, but if I did it's pretty funny.  So, that is to say, I think this is a joke and not serious right?

Why ? If there is a market between MPcoins and Gavincoins then somebody has to propose a price, that the others are free to accept or not.
The first offer from MP was an obvious mistake, because he valued his own coins below Gavin's one. If he is serious in his commitment, then he will offer more than 1 gavincoin for 1 mpcoin. This starts at 1501 future gavincoins for 750 current bitcoins.

No, the mistake was on my part. His offer is 750 bitcoin today for 1`000 USGavincoin in the future, which is essentially the same as trading 750 post-fork bitcoin for 250 USGavincoin. I might be willing to offer you a better deal, but I will not agree to "refund" in the case that the fork doesn't happen. That's the whole point of making this kind of agreement. I'd be betting that the fork is not successful, whether by being crushed on the market or by not ever happening. If you're really interested in buying some discounted coins, you had better get in the WoT.

No offense, but it should be no surprise that nobody accepts this kind of deal.

Plus, as long as the BIP is not written, and no code is released, we're talking in the wind. What even is a gavincoin ? If he rolls back to a mere "let's double the max blocksize each time the reward halfs", will the deal still be valid ?

Good point. Yesterday, we discussed exactly this:

danielpbarron: it can't really work now because anyone dumb enough to want to make the deal doesn't actually have enough money for it to be worthwhile
danielpbarron: that aside, it should technically be possible to strike a deal
davout: there are plenty of people dumb enough to take the deal that also happen to have >1k
davout: it's not possible, because defining gavincoin as "everything that is not bitcoin" just doesn't work
danielpbarron: i'd define it the way they do: a fork of bitcoin that gets 80% consensus from miners (or 75% or 95%, whatever magic number they want)
davout: what if it's like a emergency bugfix harfork? or any kind of non-braindamaged hardfork we actually agree with?
davout: because the contract also has to have an expiration, in case the hardfork never actually happens
danielpbarron: i could specify that it doesn't count as a fork if the resulting coin is still accepted by MPEx :p
Adlai: a fork by any other name... what's so hard about referencing blocksize in the contract?
danielpbarron: I guess I care more about it being accepted by MPEx than I care about the blocksize
danielpbarron: that is, if MP says the blocksize needs to go up, then up it shall go!
davout: Adlai: because imo a one-off 2mb block size increase coin would be valued very differently from an exponential-growth block size coin
danielpbarron: not that i think this will ever be demanded, but there could other changes needed to avert catastrophe that depend on a fork
danielpbarron: especially when considering how messy the code apparently is
davout: Adlai: for such a thing to make sense it has to give the ability to short gavincoin into the dirt, nothing else
danielpbarron: sounds like the thing could accidentally fork at any moment
davout: lol
danielpbarron: ascii Adlai is right though, for the purpose of this gavincoin thing, specifying block size should be sufficient
danielpbarron: ah i see what davout is sayinng
danielpbarron: your exchange could have many different fork-coin options to trade
danielpbarron: "if there is a block bigger than X, Y, or Z
* danielpbarron is still skeptical that there is any demand for USGavincoin

[RoadStress]

what have you done for bitcoin if i may ask?

davout has done many things (eg paymium, staff on this forum) and i value his opinion even if i dont share it.

What have YOU done for bitcoin since we are at this subject?

Paymium is a for-profit business. Please explain to me how does that benefit bitcoin. It only benefits him just as he is trying to benefit from a low block size. So before licking his ass please think a bit before speaking.

useless IRC quotes

Stop pasting from your useless IRC channel and stop trying to fool people because YOU HAVE GPG!!! OH NOES LOOK AT US WE HAVE GPG. YOU SHOULD TRUST ALL YOU MONEY WITH US!

[iCEBREAKER]

Whether the source of blockchain bloat is S.DICE, BitDNS, Counterparty, Blockstream, GavinCoins, or even (gasp!) sustained actual use, the point remains that in reaction to bloat...

...Bitcoin users might get increasingly tyrannical about limiting the size of the chain so it's easy for lots of users and small devices

So, are you saying you are getting tyrannical because Satoshi said so?

People in this thread have claimed before that taking Satoshi's word as a fact is a fallacy of authority. But you seem to be doing exactly the same with this quote.

Also, I don't see how “getting tyrannical about limiting the size” will help users with small devices. You can't have a blockchain in your cellphone. That's a fact, a fact that will never change even if you get 1 KB blocks. So what kind of “small devices” are we talking about here?

No matter the size of the blocks, you will need a properly configured server to run a full node. Most people in the world aren't capable or don't have access to the technology of running a server (as astonishing as it sounds), so limiting the block size so that a fictional set of users who somehow have the resources to run a server, but not enough resources to run it with 20 MB blocks, is nonsensical to me.

Satoshi said "might" not "should."  As in 'don't be surprised when' users insist on limiting the size of the chain.  I'm simply noting his prescience, not appealing to any authority.

Where his authority matters is when idiots like you "don't see how" Satoshi was right in his expectation/prediction.  That's not a fallacy, just an opportunity to laugh at stupidity thrown into high contrast with genius.   

Full BTC nodes may not need to run on a phone, but there are other blockchains well suited for such pedestrian usage.  XCN's mini-blockchain is a prime candidate to dominate an emergent mobile blockchain sector.

The set of users " who somehow have the resources to run a server, but not enough resources to run it with 20 MB blocks" are called Australians, Filipinos, Brazilians and security conscious.  Maybe you should try reading the thread and thinking before saying even more ignorant shit:

Exactly what block size the network can support is very much debatable. I currently think that 10 MB would be fine and 50 MB would be too much, though these are mostly just feelings. There should be more rigorous study of the actual limits of the network. (Gavin's done some nice work on the software/hardware front, though I'm still worried about the capabilities of typical Internet connections, and especially how they'll increase over time.)

Exactly. 30 kBps upload is common in Australia, and you sure should be able to run a full node in a typical internet connection in Australia, or Brazil, or Philippines, or whatever. The block size needs to be useful for the (lowest reasonable) common denominator, not the median.

If you come within 1/3 (and probably much less) of maxing out your network connection, your ability to run Bitcoin is dependent on the government NOT telling your network providers to interfere with certain kinds of traffic.  A chain is only as strong as it's weakest link.  If Bitcoin depends on this not happening on a fairly wide scale globally at some point in the future, then it is simply not a very strong solution to me.

[onemorexmr]

danielpbarron: I guess I care more about it being accepted by MPEx than I care about the blocksize
danielpbarron: that is, if MP says the blocksize needs to go up, then up it shall go!

no comment needed...

what have you done for bitcoin if i may ask?

 - german translation of bitcoin-qt
 - ui for bithopper
 - ui for p2pool

its not much, but i dont attack people who have proven interest in bitcoin (well expect mp once, but i apologized)

edit:
yes paymium is for-profit organization. but it was opened as bitcoin needed such a thing! and i have used it as it was the first which has a cooperation with a bank (davout: please correct me if am wrong on the last point... not sure anymore...such a long time...)

edit: (sorry for this... too much edits.. i am a little drunk)
bithopper: i joined this project because i wanted to make bitcoin miners aware of pool hopping (i did state this on my old flower1024 account publicy before joining the bithopper project - i am just to lazy to search for that post.) and why pool hopping this is a bad think. i think i am part of the reason that there are no more proportional-pools. and i am a little proud of it.

[justusranvier]

spam

How many times are you going to paste the same image in this thread?

[gentlemand]

... Here's one channel that supports the 1MB idea:

... Trilema

Too bad the owner is a rapist.

He's the perfect embodiment of modern Bitcoinman. Unusual clothes, arousing facial hair, probable sociopath with mindless zombie minions. Perhaps the new generation of smiley people with those websites with all the content on one scrolling page will win out eventually.

[hdbuck]

davout, Josh Garza, MP, Mark Karpeles... a bunch of amateurs who actually thinks they're still relevant in the world of Coinbase, Bitpay, Gemini, BIT, and all the big fishes... amateur hour is over baby!

right.. USG big-sponsored-fish high-jackers.

edit: oh and your "list of channels that wouldn't give the 1MB idea the time of day".. seriously? you dumb propagan-dead fuck stay away from bitcoin. FFS MIT killed Aaron Swartz.

edit edit: not to mention reddit or coindesk.. who promoted GOX, BFL or GAW again? XD

edit edit edit: now im sure i dont want my coins to have anything to do with these brainless derps. statist socialism all over the place. fuck you.

[forevernoob]

davout, Josh Garza, MP, Mark Karpeles... a bunch of amateurs who actually thinks they're still relevant in the world of Coinbase, Bitpay, Gemini, BIT, and all the big fishes... amateur hour is over baby!

right.. USG big-sponsored-fish high-jackers.

edit: oh and your "list of channels that wouldn't give the 1MB idea the time of day".. seriously? you dumb propagan-dead fuck stay away from bitcoin. FFS MIT killed Aaron Swartz.

edit edit: not to mention reddit or coindesk.. who promoted GOX, BFL or GAW again? XD

edit edit edit: now im sure i dont want my coins to have anything to do with these brainless derps. statist socialism all over the place. fuck you.

Too bad you didn't add self moderation to this thread. That way we could have gotten rid of this troll by now.

[traincarswreck]

davout, Josh Garza, MP, Mark Karpeles... a bunch of amateurs who actually thinks they're still relevant in the world of Coinbase, Bitpay, Gemini, BIT, and all the big fishes... amateur hour is over baby!

right.. USG big-sponsored-fish high-jackers.

edit: oh and your "list of channels that wouldn't give the 1MB idea the time of day".. seriously? you dumb propagan-dead fuck stay away from bitcoin. FFS MIT killed Aaron Swartz.

edit edit: not to mention reddit or coindesk.. who promoted GOX, BFL or GAW again? XD

edit edit edit: now im sure i dont want my coins to have anything to do with these brainless derps. statist socialism all over the place. fuck you.

Too bad you didn't add self moderation to this thread. That way we could have gotten rid of this troll by now.

forevernoob is clearly forboon. https://thewealthofchips.wordpress.com/2015/03/10/another-possible-fundamental-formalization-of-an-inquiry-into-the-nature-and-causes-of-the-wealth-of-nations/

[iGotSpots]

This change would bloat so hard and make Bitcoin inaccessible to a large portion of the world

[solex]

This change would bloat so hard and make Bitcoin inaccessible to a large portion of the world

That 1MB limit must be the world's most amazing piece of software.
3 years ago it kept the blocks at 0.1MB, two years ago at 0.2MB, a year ago at 0.3MB and today at 0.4MB

I mean, how can one number be so f...l...e...x...i...b...l...e?

Oh wait, its not really doing anything much, and neither will the 20MB. What is keeping the block size under control is the tx fee policy and the coin-dust setting.

[Lauda]

This change would bloat so hard and make Bitcoin inaccessible to a large portion of the world

This post seems like spam to me. This has been discussed so many times in the thread and outside of it.
Because storage isn't like the cheapest component in a computer.  

Please read other posts first. Although I can't blame anyone, the thread has been going into circles for more than 100 pages. The useful posts would only take a few pages combined.
Increasing the limit to 20MB does not mean that we will instantly have 20MB blocks.

[R2D221]

This post seems like spam to me. This has been discussed so many times in the thread and outside of it.
Because storage isn't like the cheapest component in a computer.

Before anyone else screams it, the issue seems to be bandwidth, not storage. I still think you can easily acquire more bandwidth, though.

[danielpbarron]

This change would bloat so hard and make Bitcoin inaccessible to a large portion of the world

That 1MB limit must be the world's most amazing piece of software.
3 years ago it kept the blocks at 0.1MB, two years ago at 0.2MB, a year ago at 0.3MB and today at 0.4MB

I mean, how can one number be so f...l...e...x...i...b...l...e?

Oh wait, its not really doing anything much, and neither will the 20MB.

We'll see it start to do much now that the limit is actually being reached. In the process of syncing the block chain, the first three fourths of the blocks take up one third of the hard drive space; that means one fourth of all the blocks take up two thirds of the disk space. Thanks to the limit, these ratios will begin to even out.

This change would bloat so hard and make Bitcoin inaccessible to a large portion of the world

This post seems like spam to me. This has been discussed so many times in the thread and outside of it.
Because storage isn't like the cheapest component in a computer.  

Please read other posts first. Although I can't blame anyone, the thread has been going into circles for more than 100 pages. The useful posts would only take a few pages combined.
Increasing the limit to 20MB does not mean that we will instantly have 20MB blocks.

It's not just storage; there is bandwidth, cpu, and RAM to take into consideration.

You're the spammer; this point has been refuted many times.

XI. Raising the limit doesn't force the blocks to be filled. It just gives miners the option to make bigger blocks should market conditions make it to their advantage to do so.

This is not how economics work. Quoting Buffettⁱ :

The domestic textile industry operates in a commodity business, competing in a world market in which substantial excess capacity exists. Much of the trouble we experienced was attributable, both directly and indirectly, to competition from foreign countries whose workers are paid a small fraction of the U.S. minimum wage. But that in no way means that our labor force deserves any blame for our closing. In fact, in comparison with employees of American industry generally, our workers were poorly paid, as has been the case throughout the textile business. In contract negotiations, union leaders and members were sensitive to our disadvantageous cost position and did not push for unrealistic wage increases or unproductive work practices. To the contrary, they tried just as hard as we did to keep us competitive. Even during our liquidation period they performed superbly. (Ironically, we would have been better off financially if our union had behaved unreasonably some years ago; we then would have recognized the impossible future that we faced, promptly closed down, and avoided significant future losses.)

Over the years, we had the option of making large capital expenditures in the textile operation that would have allowed us to somewhat reduce variable costs. Each proposal to do so looked like an immediate winner. Measured by standard return-on-investment tests, in fact, these proposals usually promised greater economic benefits than would have resulted from comparable expenditures in our highly-profitable candy and newspaper businesses.

But the promised benefits from these textile investments were illusory. Many of our competitors, both domestic and foreign, were stepping up to the same kind of expenditures and, once enough companies did so, their reduced costs became the baseline for reduced prices industrywide. Viewed individually, each company's capital investment decision appeared cost-effective and rational; viewed collectively, the decisions neutralized each other and were irrational, just as happens when each person watching a parade decides he can see a little better if he stands on tiptoes.

After each round of investment, all the players had more money in the game and returns remained anemic. Thus, we faced a miserable choice: huge capital investment would have helped to keep our textile business alive, but would have left us with terrible returns on ever-growing amounts of capital. After the investment, moreover, the foreign competition would still have retained a major, continuing advantage in labor costs. A refusal to invest, however, would make us increasingly non-competitive, even measured against domestic textile manufacturers. I always thought myself in the position described by Woody Allen in one of his movies: "More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness, the other to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly."

For an understanding of how the to-invest-or-not-to-invest dilemma plays out in a commodity business, it is instructive to look at Burlington Industries, by far the largest U.S. textile company both 21 years ago and now. In 1964 Burlington had sales of $1.2 billion against our $50 million. It had strengths in both distribution and production that we could never hope to match and also, of course, had an earnings record far superior to ours. Its stock sold at 60 at the end of 1964; ours was 13.

Burlington made a decision to stick to the textile business, and in 1985 had sales of about $2.8 billion. During the 1964-85 period, the company made capital expenditures of about $3 billion, far more than any other U.S. textile company and more than $200-per-share on that $60 stock. A very large part of the expenditures, I am sure, was devoted to cost improvement and expansion. Given Burlington's basic commitment to stay in textiles, I would also surmise that the company's capital decisions were quite rational.

Nevertheless, Burlington has lost sales volume in real dollars and has far lower returns on sales and equity now than 20 years ago. Split 2-for-1 in 1965, the stock now sells at 34-on an adjusted basis, just a little over its $60 price in 1964. Meanwhile, the CPI has more than tripled. Therefore, each share commands about one-third the purchasing power it did at the end of 1964. Regular dividends have been paid but they, too, have shrunk significantly in purchasing power.

This devastating outcome for the shareholders indicates what can happen when much brain power and energy are applied to a faulty premise. The situation is suggestive of Samuel Johnson's horse: "A horse that can count to ten is a remarkable horse, not a remarkable mathematician." Likewise, a textile company that allocates capital brilliantly within its industry is a remarkable textile company, but not a remarkable business.

My conclusion from my own experiences and from much observation of other businesses is that a good managerial record (measured by economic returns) is far more a function of what business boat you get into than it is of how effectively you row (though intelligence and effort help considerably, of course, in any business, good or bad). Some years ago I wrote: "When a management with a reputation for brilliance tackles a business with a reputation for poor fundamental economics, it is the reputation of the business that remains intact." Nothing has since changed my point of view on that matter. Should you find yourself in a chronically leaking boat, energy devoted to changing vessels is likely to be more productive than energy devoted to patching leaks.

So, no : infinite blocks to not give "the miners" any sort of option, because "the miners" as a collective noun do not exist. There exist individual miners exclusively, and the incentives of individuals are, should the Gavin scam actually be implemented, firmly oriented towards destroying the commons that is Bitcoin.

There's no way out of this problem, and simple ignorance of economy or game theory is not a solution.

Much of the "not full blocks" came from a time when bitcoin was not worth much and not worth attacking/abusing. It is now clear that bitcoin exists, and is very powerful. Now is the time that a limit is important. Without a limit, UnSavory Garnish will come around pumping all sorts of "put it on the block chain" "bitcoin 2.0" crud. The purpose of these obvious scams is to make maintenance of a full node the sort of thing that only their approved carries can afford -- not unlike the purpose of regulations which are often secretly promoted by the very industry they appear to restrict. The goal is to keep people like you and me from competing; too distracted with things that don't matter. "You can't run your own full node, but you can save your cat pictures on the decentralized cloud! Pay no mind that by 'decentralized' we mean a few of our 'trusted' servers that we can easily subpoena."

We oppose this fork primarily because we see bitcoin as a challenge to bad money and bad governments. We don't see bitcoin as a fancier way to do the same old things. As it runs now, bitcoin is exactly what we want. As it runs now, bitcoin is sound money that governments cannot control. Yes, that means the poor will not have easy access. No, that's not a problem; nice things are not for the poor. Nice things have a cost, and poor people can't pay by the very definition of them being poor.

They don't have to all be poor though! Being a billionaire has never been so cheap as it is today! 10 bitcoin is 1 billion satoshi (the true unit of account recorded in blocks). That's like 3k USD right now.

[adworker]

We'll see it start to do much now that the limit is actually being reached. In the process of syncing the block chain, the first three fourths of the blocks take up one third of the hard drive space; that means one fourth of all the blocks take up two thirds of the disk space. Thanks to the limit, these ratios will begin to even out.

You forget to say once the limit is reached, Bitcoin popularity (crypto market share) will start to decline pretty fast. Basically only limited transactions can be included in the block, if more transactions are required by users, some have never to be included. Basically it will be easier to use different coin than feeling the hours/days/never confirmed transactions pain with 1MB Bitcoin

[R2D221]

We oppose this fork primarily because we see bitcoin as a challenge to bad money and bad governments. We don't see bitcoin as a fancier way to do the same old things. As it runs now, bitcoin is exactly what we want. As it runs now, bitcoin is sound money that governments cannot control. Yes, that means the poor will not have easy access. No, that's not a problem; nice things are not for the poor. Nice things have a cost, and poor people can't pay by the very definition of them being poor.

They don't have to all be poor though! Being a billionaire has never been so cheap as it is today! 10 bitcoin is 1 billion satoshi (the true unit of account recorded in blocks). That's like 3k USD right now.

First you say that Bitcoin is not for the poor, but then you say that it's very easy to be not poor. So, while not technically a contradiction, this leads to the conclusion that Bitcoin is for everyone (which contrasts with “Bitcoin is not for the poor”). So, which is it?

Also, saying that “Being a billionaire has never been so cheap” is just oxymoronic, unless your definition of “billionaire” doesn't actually involve being rich. If it's so, then being a billionaire isn't actually impressive or something that people would want or desire.