Bitcoin Forum
March 28, 2024, 11:33:21 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 26.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Poll
Question: Bitcoin fork proposal by respected Bitcoin lead dev Gavin Andresen, to increase the block size from 1MB to 20MB.
pro
anti
agnostic
DGAF

Pages: « 1 ... 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 [121] 122 123 124 125 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Bitcoin 20MB Fork  (Read 154756 times)
Mikestang
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1274
Merit: 1000



View Profile
March 17, 2015, 04:57:37 PM
 #2401

If not...  such contracts would only make sense to those currently positioned in fiat/Long on fiat...  what am I missing?   Undecided

You are missing that this proposal is bad for Bitcoin in the long run

So...  the If not stands?   Undecided
If this was a real problem, why Satoshi didn't predict it and launch BTC at 20MB by default?

Because 20 megs wasn't necessary at the beginning.  It is designed to be scalable, however, so yes, Satorshi did predict the need to increase the size at some point.
1711625601
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1711625601

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1711625601
Reply with quote  #2

1711625601
Report to moderator
"Governments are good at cutting off the heads of a centrally controlled networks like Napster, but pure P2P networks like Gnutella and Tor seem to be holding their own." -- Satoshi
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
1711625601
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1711625601

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1711625601
Reply with quote  #2

1711625601
Report to moderator
davout
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372
Merit: 1007


1davout


View Profile WWW
March 17, 2015, 05:03:02 PM
 #2402

Why not ?

Why would I obstruct development efforts that I believe would harm Bitcoin in the long run and invest resources for another fork to win if I wanted to Short?  

Which brings us back a few posts...  to me...  the said contracts would make sense only if I believed that these large businesses pushing for the increase would end back on the 1 MB chain.

...still might be missing something though...

Let's assume the prices of bitcoin and gavincoin diverge because of the shorting and that you can sell one bitcoin for two gavincoins.

If you support the original bitcoin you'll mine on the original chain.

Now if you think gavincoin will prevail, it's still more profitable to mine on the original chain, because whatever you mine, it will ultimately yield two gavincoins for every original bitcoin you mine.

And obviously, by doing so you're strengthening bitcoin at the expense of gavincoin. The value of a coin attracts mining, which in turns increases the value of this coin against the other.

danielpbarron
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 212
Merit: 100


Daniel P. Barron


View Profile WWW
March 17, 2015, 05:04:14 PM
 #2403

Huge numbers of Bitcoin companies will be in locations where high-speed fiber is present. For people with poor internet service there should eventually be an alternative: satellite broadcasting of transactions and blocks, as per Jeff Garzik's bitsats proposal.

So it's not acceptable for the poor people to rely on 3rd parties... unless it's to trust them with the most important part: full nodes. The satellite thing is a total joke, and does nothing to enhance security.

You're describing a world in which any derp with a satoshi gets to spam the network with his coffee purchase, and any government can take over the network if they control the high bandwidth regions. This is backwards and misses the point of bitcoin. "Hash cash" wasn't the revolution; distributed consensus was. Bitcoin is not valuable because "everybody has access." It's valuable because nobody can counterfeit.



I spent last week talking to some of the largest Bitcoin businesses (much bigger than Paymium/Bitcoin-Central or anything anybody in #bitcoin-assets is involved with), and they all want the maximum block size to increase.

Hahahahahaha! Of course your fellow UnSavoryGarnish agree! Next you're gonna come in here saying a majority of senators support your proposal. You are scum, and there is a tree in a pine forest somewhere with your name on it.

Marriage is a permanent bond (or should be) between a man and a woman. Scripture reveals a man has the freedom to have this marriage bond with more than one woman, if he so desires. But, anything beyond this is a perversion. -- Darwin Fish
Mikestang
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1274
Merit: 1000



View Profile
March 17, 2015, 05:19:34 PM
 #2404

I spent last week talking to some of the largest Bitcoin businesses (much bigger than Paymium/Bitcoin-Central or anything anybody in #bitcoin-assets is involved with), and they all want the maximum block size to increase.

If a big business wants something, regardless of what that business is, I tend to want the opposite.
GTO911
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 672
Merit: 500



View Profile
March 17, 2015, 05:24:30 PM
 #2405

People squashing Gavin's forward moving ideas. Oh dear, BTC showing early signs of death.
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2156
Merit: 1070


Crypto is the separation of Power and State.


View Profile WWW
March 17, 2015, 05:31:30 PM
 #2406

People squashing Gavin's forward moving ideas. Oh dear, BTC showing early signs of death.

Is it true?  Is Bitcoin so delicate that mere dissension in the ranks creates visible indicators of its premature mortality?

No silly, get a grip.

BITCOIN >> Gavin's random numbers

Antifragile means these struggles make the system stronger.


██████████
█████████████████
██████████████████████
█████████████████████████
████████████████████████████
████
████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
███████████████████████████
██████
██████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
█████████████
██████████████
████████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
██████████████████████
█████████████████
██████████

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
Buy and sell XMR near you
P2P Exchange Network
Buy XMR with fiat
Is Dash a scam?
davout
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372
Merit: 1007


1davout


View Profile WWW
March 17, 2015, 05:33:08 PM
 #2407

Thanks for explaining!   Wink

No probs!

R2D221
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 658
Merit: 500



View Profile
March 17, 2015, 05:39:27 PM
 #2408

Presumption is negative.  Burden of proof falls on the affirmative.  

Why?  Because if presumption was affirmative, we'd have to prove negatives to rebut it.  And you can't prove a negative.  QED.

Actually, what you can't do is prove that you can't prove a statement. But this is from Gödel's Second Incompleteness Theorem. I don't know how this is related to statistics.

An economy based on endless growth is unsustainable.
R2D221
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 658
Merit: 500



View Profile
March 17, 2015, 05:40:49 PM
 #2409

I spent last week talking to some of the largest Bitcoin businesses (much bigger than Paymium/Bitcoin-Central or anything anybody in #bitcoin-assets is involved with), and they all want the maximum block size to increase.

If a big business wants something, regardless of what that business is, I tend to want the opposite.

Then you are biased and not analyzing the proposals themselves.

An economy based on endless growth is unsustainable.
DooMAD
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 3738
Merit: 3081


Leave no FUD unchallenged


View Profile
March 17, 2015, 05:43:13 PM
 #2410

People squashing Gavin's forward moving ideas. Oh dear, BTC showing early signs of death.


No signs of death here.  Those who want to stay behind are more than welcome to.  They claim that their 1MB chain will end up superior and yet they keep pleading page after page for us to stick around and not leave them behind.  Doesn't sound like they have much confidence in their words.  One way or another, the forward momentum will carry on.  

..JAMBLER.io..Create Your Bitcoin Mixing
Business Now for   F R E E 
▄█████████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
████▀████████████████████
███▀█████▄█▀███▀▀▀██████
██▀█████▄█▄██████████████
██▄▄████▀▄▄▄▀▀▀▀▀▄▄██████
█████▄▄▄██████████▀▄████
█████▀▄█▄██████▀█▄█████
███████▀▄█▀█▄██▀█▄███████
█████████▄█▀▄█▀▄█████████
█████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
▀█████████████████████████████
█████████████████████████████████████████████████
.
      OUR      
PARTNERS

.
█████████████████████████████████████████████████
████▄
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
████▀
▄█████████████████████████████
████████▀▀█████▀▀████████
█████▀█████████████▀█████
████████████████████████
███████████████▄█████████
█████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
███████████████▀█████████
████████████████████████
█████▄█████████████▄█████
████████▄▄█████▄▄████████
▀█████████████████████████████
█████████████████████████████████████████████████
.
   INVEST   
BITCOIN

.
█████████████████████████████████████████████████
████▄
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
████▀
R2D221
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 658
Merit: 500



View Profile
March 17, 2015, 05:45:30 PM
 #2411

Why not ?

Why would I obstruct development efforts that I believe would harm Bitcoin in the long run and invest resources for another fork to win if I wanted to Short?  

Which brings us back a few posts...  to me...  the said contracts would make sense only if I believed that these large businesses pushing for the increase would end back on the 1 MB chain.

...still might be missing something though...

Let's assume the prices of bitcoin and gavincoin diverge because of the shorting and that you can sell one bitcoin for two gavincoins.

If you support the original bitcoin you'll mine on the original chain.

Now if you think gavincoin will prevail, it's still more profitable to mine on the original chain, because whatever you mine, it will ultimately yield two gavincoins for every original bitcoin you mine.

And obviously, by doing so you're strengthening bitcoin at the expense of gavincoin. The value of a coin attracts mining, which in turns increases the value of this coin against the other.

What you are missing it that if the fork is actually made, blocks compatible with the 20 MB fork only will come after 75% of the nodes have announced themselves that they will be ready for the fork. So, either this happens and it's more profitable to mine on the 20 MB chain, or this doesn't happen and nobody will be mining on the 20 MB chain.

An economy based on endless growth is unsustainable.
R2D221
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 658
Merit: 500



View Profile
March 17, 2015, 05:46:42 PM
 #2412

People squashing Gavin's forward moving ideas. Oh dear, BTC showing early signs of death.


No signs of death here.  Those who want to stay behind are more than welcome to.  They claim that their 1MB chain will end up superior and yet they keep pleading page after page for us to stick around and not leave them behind.  Doesn't sound like they have much confidence in their words.  One way or another, the forward momentum will carry on.  

And twisting logic, such as claiming that people who voted agnostic/DGAF are automatically against the fork.

An economy based on endless growth is unsustainable.
Gavin Andresen
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652
Merit: 2164


Chief Scientist


View Profile WWW
March 17, 2015, 05:49:42 PM
Merited by EFS (100), OgNasty (50)
 #2413

Finally a reasonable question:

Gavin, could you please explain the reason behind trying to guess and hard-code the optimal limit, instead of doing something adaptive, like "limit = median(size of last N blocks) * 10"?

The problem people are worried about if the maximum block size is too high:  That big miners with high-bandwidth, high-CPU machines will drive out either small miners or I-want-to-run-a-full-node-at-home people by producing blocks too large for them to download or verify quickly.

An adaptive limit could be set so that some minority of miners can 'veto' block size increases; that'd be fine with me.

But it wouldn't help with "I want to be able to run a full node from my home computer / network connection." Does anybody actually care about that? Satoshi didn't, his vision was home users running SPV nodes and full nodes being hosted in datacenters.

I haven't looked at the numbers, but I'd bet the number of personal computers in homes is declining or will soon be declining-- being replaced by smartphones and tablets. So I'd be happy to drop the "must be able to run at home" requirement and just go with an adaptive algorithm. Doing both is also possible, of course, but I don't like extra complexity if it can be helped.

It is hard to tease out which problem people care about, because most people haven't thought much about the block size and confuse the current pain of downloading the chain initially (pretty easily fixed by getting the current UTXO set from somebody), the current pain of dedicating tens of gigabytes of disk space to the chain (fixed by pruning old, spent blocks and transactions), and slow block propagation times (fixed by improving the code and p2p protocol).


PS: my apologies to davout for misremembering his testnet work.

PPS: I am always open to well-thought-out alternative ideas. If there is a simple, well-thought-out proposal for an adaptive blocksize increase, please point me to it.


How often do you get the chance to work on a potentially world-changing project?
DooMAD
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 3738
Merit: 3081


Leave no FUD unchallenged


View Profile
March 17, 2015, 06:04:12 PM
 #2414

People squashing Gavin's forward moving ideas. Oh dear, BTC showing early signs of death.


No signs of death here.  Those who want to stay behind are more than welcome to.  They claim that their 1MB chain will end up superior and yet they keep pleading page after page for us to stick around and not leave them behind.  Doesn't sound like they have much confidence in their words.  One way or another, the forward momentum will carry on.  

And twisting logic, such as claiming that people who voted agnostic/DGAF are automatically against the fork.

Indeed.  And if we do start hitting full blocks on a regular basis, people will suddenly become far less agnostic and will definitely "GAF" when their transactions take longer to confirm.  It would be far nicer, however, to avoid that rather unfortunate turn of events and fix it before it becomes an issue.



PPS: I am always open to well-thought-out alternative ideas. If there is a simple, well-thought-out proposal for an adaptive blocksize increase, please point me to it.


This is the part they're struggling with.  After at least three threads and who knows how many hundreds of pages, they still can't suggest a viable alternative that doesn't involve providing a second-tier service to the majority of users.  Quick to say the sky is falling and make idle threats to protect their own petty interests, but slow to provide an alternative that doesn't benefit them at the expense of everyone else. 

..JAMBLER.io..Create Your Bitcoin Mixing
Business Now for   F R E E 
▄█████████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
████▀████████████████████
███▀█████▄█▀███▀▀▀██████
██▀█████▄█▄██████████████
██▄▄████▀▄▄▄▀▀▀▀▀▄▄██████
█████▄▄▄██████████▀▄████
█████▀▄█▄██████▀█▄█████
███████▀▄█▀█▄██▀█▄███████
█████████▄█▀▄█▀▄█████████
█████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
▀█████████████████████████████
█████████████████████████████████████████████████
.
      OUR      
PARTNERS

.
█████████████████████████████████████████████████
████▄
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
████▀
▄█████████████████████████████
████████▀▀█████▀▀████████
█████▀█████████████▀█████
████████████████████████
███████████████▄█████████
█████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
███████████████▀█████████
████████████████████████
█████▄█████████████▄█████
████████▄▄█████▄▄████████
▀█████████████████████████████
█████████████████████████████████████████████████
.
   INVEST   
BITCOIN

.
█████████████████████████████████████████████████
████▄
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
████▀
danielpbarron
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 212
Merit: 100


Daniel P. Barron


View Profile WWW
March 17, 2015, 06:04:46 PM
 #2415

But it wouldn't help with "I want to be able to run a full node from my home computer / network connection." Does anybody actually care about that? Satoshi didn't, his vision was home users running SPV nodes and full nodes being hosted in datacenters.

I haven't looked at the numbers, but I'd bet the number of personal computers in homes is declining or will soon be declining-- being replaced by smartphones and tablets. So I'd be happy to drop the "must be able to run at home" requirement and just go with an adaptive algorithm. Doing both is also possible, of course, but I don't like extra complexity if it can be helped.

You are so despicable. Those people can just use a 3rd party shared wallet if they are so disinterested in actually keeping a full copy of the ledger. What is the difference from their point of view? Whereas the difference from your point of view is clear: your handlers want the full ledger to be as centralized as possible so that maybe they can corrupt it!

Marriage is a permanent bond (or should be) between a man and a woman. Scripture reveals a man has the freedom to have this marriage bond with more than one woman, if he so desires. But, anything beyond this is a perversion. -- Darwin Fish
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 4564
Merit: 1276


View Profile
March 17, 2015, 06:10:19 PM
 #2416


PPS: I am always open to well-thought-out alternative ideas. If there is a simple, well-thought-out proposal for an adaptive blocksize increase, please point me to it.

Sidechains.

Bitcoin does not know nor care about the 'adaptation' (which can happen on multiple fronts simultaneously) and they can in principle be a near to a perfect proxy for space in the native Bitcoin blockchain desired.  And, or course, if one really needs an ultra-high level of security, one can always just use native Bitcoin and pay what this kind of security is worth.


sig spam anywhere and self-moderated threads on the pol&soc board are for losers.
yampi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 433
Merit: 250


View Profile
March 17, 2015, 06:15:39 PM
 #2417

What's stopping people from launching this fork already?
Why wait for the opinions of members of some "foundation"?
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2156
Merit: 1070


Crypto is the separation of Power and State.


View Profile WWW
March 17, 2015, 06:19:25 PM
 #2418

Presumption is negative.  Burden of proof falls on the affirmative.  

Why?  Because if presumption was affirmative, we'd have to prove negatives to rebut it.  And you can't prove a negative.  QED.

Actually, what you can't do is prove that you can't prove a statement. But this is from Gödel's Second Incompleteness Theorem. I don't know how this is related to statistics.

Formal logic != statistics.

Thank you for degrading the conversation with your sophomoric pedantry, which is easily mitigated by appeal to the comparably vast wisdom of Yahoo Answers:

Quote
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110307170939AA7BPmy

It is short hand for a much more logical expression.
Which is, "You cannot prove a universal, existential negative."
In other words, you cannot prove that some hypothetical does not exist, anywhere in the universe, because that would require that you be able to look everywhere at the same moment. And, of course, if the hypothetical something, in question is claimed to be invisible and undetectable by any means, in principle, it gets even sillier to attempt to disprove that hypothetical's existence.

But saying all that, over and over gets really tiring, so most people just shorten it to, "You cannot prove a negative." and go on to do something more productive with their time.

You don't get to count agnostic/DGAF votes in the pro-fork column.  They are functionally equivalent to anti votes, because all reject (whether actively or passively) Gavin's BloatCoin proposition, and thus affirm (implicitly or explicitly) status quo.

I hope you never serve on a jury.  The other jurors would have to put up with your idiotic claims that voting not-guilty affirms guilt, just because they didn't vote 'innocent.'   Grin


██████████
█████████████████
██████████████████████
█████████████████████████
████████████████████████████
████
████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
███████████████████████████
██████
██████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
█████████████
██████████████
████████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
██████████████████████
█████████████████
██████████

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
Buy and sell XMR near you
P2P Exchange Network
Buy XMR with fiat
Is Dash a scam?
sed
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


View Profile
March 17, 2015, 06:35:16 PM
 #2419

Logic 101, bro.

Presumption is negative.  Burden of proof falls on the affirmative.  

Why?  Because if presumption was affirmative, we'd have to prove negatives to rebut it.  And you can't prove a negative.  QED.

You should have learned that in high school.  Consider suing your teachers for doing a really shitty job of educating you.

Uh oh.  I think you might want to double-check your own logic teachers.  The old yarn about "not proving a negative" isn't in any way a QED it's a popularism which, while related to an actual fact of logic, is actually a fallacy in the way that you've deployed it.

In fact, "proving a negative", as you say, is one of the basic argumentation techniques for proof.  You take a statement you want to prove, you negate it, you show that that leads to absurdity, this is QED for the original statement.  The crucial point, in fact, relates to the square of opposition (cf. Arisitotle's Περὶ Ἑρμηνείας, Latin: De Interpretatione).  Contradictories divide up the space between them with nothing left so that either A or ~A is true, it's impossible for it to be otherwise.  When you're dealing with propositional/sentential negation then you are dealing with contradictories so it is quite useful to employ negation in proofs.   On the other hand, contrary statements allow for the middle ground to also be true and this is where you have to be careful employing negation.

All cats are black [is contradictory to] Some cats are not black (= not(all cats are black)).
All cats are black [is contrary to] No cat is black.

In the contradictories, either the left or right is true, no other options (in fact, I believe in the real world that the right side is true, some cats are not black).  However, in contraries, it's possible that neither the left or right is true (and, btw, I believe this is the case in the real world for this example).

The old yarn about "you can't prove a negative" is a popularism which is often employed without considering how vague it really is.  If you really want to understand syllogistic logic and negation, start with the square of opposition.

Best!
CoinCidental
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1316
Merit: 1000


Si vis pacem, para bellum


View Profile
March 17, 2015, 06:36:14 PM
 #2420

There is no "three-to-one" margin.  You don't get to claim agnostic/DGAF as votes to affirm your silly fork, which actually only enjoys 60% support against the negative/status quo default presumption.

His math is correct though, if you have 60% X and 20% Y then you have a 3-to-1 ratio

I think it will be 4-1 in reality
Before i did any research on it I voted that I was undecided

Now I.know the details I would have voted yes and I'm sure I'm not the only one who didn't have enough info to make an informed choice when this thread was started

Pages: « 1 ... 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 [121] 122 123 124 125 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!