Bitcoin 20MB Fork

[R2D221]

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

The code is not ready yet. Gavin is still testing it.

[1715296069]

1715296069

[1715296069]

1715296069

[NxtChg]

Doing both is also possible, of course, but I don't like extra complexity if it can be helped.

Thanks for explaining, and you're right - doing both is not a good idea.

Interesting idea about the minority vetoing block size increases: since there is no market mechanism, an "arms race" might be the next best thing

Need to think more about it.

[R2D221]

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

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.

This “You cannot prove a negative” thing, as you present it, is the basis of most religions, where there's a claim: “God exists”. You can't prove that God doesn't exist, because, as you say, you don't have information everywhere in the universe to analyze it and show that God is not there. However, if you base all your further work on the assumption that God does actually exist, anything you come up with will be just faith, with nobody being able to prove or disprove what you're claiming. Science doesn't work that way.

Now, consider this analogy. People saying that they don't know or don't care about the 20 MB fork is comparable to asking people if they support transitioning to IPv6. Most people would answer “What is IPv6? I've never heard of it”, but that doesn't automatically turn them against IPv6. Why would it? I don't understand your reasoning here.

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.'

Wait, what? How do you reach that conclusion based on any of what I have been saying so far?

[iCEBREAKER]

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!

Yes, I know all about proof by contradiction and reductio ad absurdum.  But thanks for the boring refresher course.

Are you claiming that presumption is affirmative?  Of course not; that would be stupid, and almost as pointless as niggling over paraphrasing.

So spare us the sophomoric pedantry and allow some leeway for rhetorical shorthand.  Even Yahoo Answers knows better than to pull that crap:

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.

The point is that 60% pro-bloat votes isn't anywhere near the desired, much less required, consensus.  And you don't get to count the agnostic/DGAF votes as 'anti-anti-fork' as Gavin illogically did.

[sed]

Yes, I know all about proof by contradiction and reductio ad absurdum.  But thanks for the boring refresher course.

Are you claiming that presumption is affirmative?  Of course not; that would be stupid, and almost as pointless as niggling over paraphrasing.

So spare us the sophomoric pedantry and allow some leeway for rhetorical shorthand.  Even Yahoo Answers knows better than to pull that crap:

...

The point is that 60% pro-bloat votes isn't anywhere near the desired, much less required, consensus.  And you don't get to count the agnostic/DGAF votes as 'anti-anti-fork' as Gavin illogically did.

iCEBREAKER, your trolling tone makes you, I think, impossible to speak to.  Good luck convincing anyone with your bullying, namecalling, trolling tactics.

[R2D221]

And you don't get to count the agnostic/DGAF votes as 'anti-anti-fork' as Gavin illogically did.

Gavin didn't. I did, but just to show how ridiculous it is to take them into account in the first place.

[iCEBREAKER]

consider this analogy. People saying that they don't know or don't care about the 20 MB fork is comparable to asking people if they support transitioning to IPv6. Most people would answer “What is IPv6? I've never heard of it”, but that doesn't automatically turn them against IPv6. Why would it? I don't understand your reasoning here.

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.'

Wait, what? How do you reach that conclusion based on any of what I have been saying so far?

Your analogy is invalid because "most people" don't GAF about BTC, much less running a node or the health of the network.

If you're not explicitly for the bloat fork, you are against it.

Whether you are explicitly or implicitly against the fork (IE anti or DGAF) is not logically nor functionally relevant.

In my legal analogy, it's like disputing the non-guilt of the accused just because the jury didn't explicitly vote innocent.  You can't equate not-guilty votes with not-not-innocent; that's isn't how it works.  Not-guilty verdicts are functionally equivalent to findings of innocent, but we don't ask for innocent verdicts because you can't prove a negative universal, existential negative.

At the functional level, anti-fork vs. DGAF is a distinction without a difference.  That's why Gavin is wrong to claim DGAF votes for the pro-fork side.

[R2D221]

I think it would put us in danger because internet service providers will react if we bloat their network (internet is not only for Bitcoiners) I think they would end applying limits to upload and downloads for sure, and maybe apply QOS.

How many bytes do you think Visa and MasterCard use? I bet it's way more than 1 MB every 10 minutes, and you don't see them being blocked by ISPs (or maybe they do?)

[R2D221]

Your analogy is invalid because "most people" don't GAF about BTC, much less running a node or the health of the network.

Well, the option DGAF is for people who don't give a fuck, so there's this tautology. Where is this going?

If you're not explicitly for the bloat fork, you are against it.

This is a fallacy. Person A doesn't give a fuck about the decision, as long as she can transfer money to her family in the other side of the world. If having a 20 MB block is the way to do it, or if sidechains are implemented at last, she doesn't care. She has NO OPINION on the matter.

Whether you are explicitly or implicitly against the fork (IE anti or DGAF) is not logically nor functionally relevant.

While this is technically true, your assumption that people undecided are implicitly against the fork is wrong.

In my legal analogy, it's like disputing the non-guilt of the accused just because the jury didn't explicitly vote innocent.  You can't equate not-guilty votes with not-not-innocent; that's isn't how it works.  Not-guilty verdicts are functionally equivalent to findings of innocent, but we don't ask for innocent verdicts because you can't prove a negative universal, existential negative.

If the jury votes neither guilty nor not guilty, then a verdict can't be made, because there's a “I don't know” in there, and the legal system requires the jury to have a definite answer. I don't know where you come up with this not-not-innocent nonsense.

That's why Gavin is wrong to claim DGAF votes for the pro-fork side.

Again, Gavin didn't claim the votes. I did, just to illustrate the ridiculousness that you are trying to do.

[iCEBREAKER]

Yes, I know all about proof by contradiction and reductio ad absurdum.  But thanks for the boring refresher course.

Are you claiming that presumption is affirmative?  Of course not; that would be stupid, and almost as pointless as niggling over paraphrasing.

So spare us the sophomoric pedantry and allow some leeway for rhetorical shorthand.  Even Yahoo Answers knows better than to pull that crap:

...

The point is that 60% pro-bloat votes isn't anywhere near the desired, much less required, consensus.  And you don't get to count the agnostic/DGAF votes as 'anti-anti-fork' as Gavin illogically did.

iCEBREAKER, your trolling tone makes you, I think, impossible to speak to.  Good luck convincing anyone with your bullying, namecalling, trolling tactics.

You say I'm "impossible to speak to" yet there you are, speaking to me regardless.   

You know you are full of crap when you start shamelessly contradicting your own whiny, self-pitying exaggerations.

If you can't take a little pushback, don't start with the sophomoric pedantry.

You can't support the absurd idea that presumption is affirmative, regardless of BS about "Περὶ Ἑρμηνείας."

So rather than speak to the larger point, you niggle about minutia.

Why would I care if such a nitwit cries and pouts when called out for his sophistry?

Oh what a great loss.  Who ever will refresh my memory of epistemology, despite me having not forgotten one bit of it?

I think you might want to double-check your own logic teachers.

OMG HOW DARE YOU BE SUCH A RUDE TROLL!  I can't speak with you, because WAAAAAAAAAAAH.

But seriously, my logic teachers are among the most qualified in the world and I with minimal effort passed their rigorous courses.

None of them would ever try to argue that presumption is affirmative, except perhaps for illustrative purposes in a remedial logic-for-poets seminar.

Cheers!

[R2D221]

“Sophomoric pedantry”, iCEBREAKER's new catchphrase.

[sed]

Yes, I know all about proof by contradiction and reductio ad absurdum.  But thanks for the boring refresher course.

Are you claiming that presumption is affirmative?  Of course not; that would be stupid, and almost as pointless as niggling over paraphrasing.

So spare us the sophomoric pedantry and allow some leeway for rhetorical shorthand.  Even Yahoo Answers knows better than to pull that crap:

...

The point is that 60% pro-bloat votes isn't anywhere near the desired, much less required, consensus.  And you don't get to count the agnostic/DGAF votes as 'anti-anti-fork' as Gavin illogically did.

iCEBREAKER, your trolling tone makes you, I think, impossible to speak to.  Good luck convincing anyone with your bullying, namecalling, trolling tactics.

You say I'm "impossible to speak to" yet there you are, speaking to me regardless.   

You know you are full of crap when you start shamelessly contradicting your own whiny, self-pitying exaggerations.

If you can't take a little pushback, don't start with the sophomoric pedantry.

You can't support the absurd idea that presumption is affirmative, regardless of BS about "Περὶ Ἑρμηνείας."

So rather than speak to the larger point, you niggle about minutia.

Why would I care if such a nitwit cries and pouts when called out for his sophistry?

Oh what a great loss.  Who ever will refresh my memory of epistemology, despite me having not forgotten one bit of it?

I think you might want to double-check your own logic teachers.

OMG HOW DARE YOU BE SUCH A RUDE TROLL!  I can't speak with you, because WAAAAAAAAAAAH.

But seriously, my logic teachers are among the most qualified in the world and I with minimal effort passed their rigorous courses.

None of them would ever try to argue that presumption is affirmative, except perhaps for illustrative purposes in a remedial logic-for-poets seminar.

Cheers!

Ok, I understand.  You are GOD.  We are all fools.  You have convinced me.  Best of luck in life.

[iCEBREAKER]

“Sophomoric pedantry”, iCEBREAKER's new catchphrase.

Yes, EG:

Today R2D221 learned that presumption is negative, despite his try-hard attempt to use sophomoric pedantry to dispute the fact.

Specific to policy debates:

The reason why the Negative has presumption is that the status quo is presumed to work, presumed to operate well enough until proven otherwise.

[NewLiberty]

I think it would put us in danger because internet service providers will react if we bloat their network (internet is not only for Bitcoiners) I think they would end applying limits to upload and downloads for sure, and maybe apply QOS.

How many bytes do you think Visa and MasterCard use? I bet it's way more than 1 MB every 10 minutes, and you don't see them being blocked by ISPs (or maybe they do?)

Centralized systems do not need to replicate data to thousands of locations globally distributed nodes over a public network either.
They use many fewer backups, no equivalent transparency and central repositories of hackable data stores.
It isn't really comparable at all other than that they are both including payment systems.

They have a private network.  Yes, it does have MPLS QoS, and lots of nifty security and performance elements, (which those anti-technology, pro-government autocracy whackos prohibit in the USA-internet through their "NetNeutrality" nonsense).

[CoinCidental]

5g internet will be rolling out in the next 2 years in the UK and Europe, speeds of 1GB+ per second have been achieved by Samsung  in south korea already..

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/shortcuts/2014/mar/10/david-cameron-wants-superfast-5g-internet-connection

4k.ultra hd streaming is already available....
Any problems larger blocks cause will be dealt with easily when the time is right

[iCEBREAKER]

Ok, I understand.  You are GOD.  We are all fools.  You have convinced me.  Best of luck in life.

Are you still speaking to me?  Didn't you say that was "impossible?"

Oh wait, maybe you were using a rhetorical flourish and I shouldn't bicker when your intent and meaning are clear.  Not that you grant me the same favor when I state 'you can't prove a negative.'

I didn't say I am GOD.

I said if you insist on acting like a pedantic sophomore I will respond with all due mockery, because I have the inclination and background necessary to take apart your sophisticated BS.

When I say 'presumption is negative' and you dispute such an obvious conclusion, of course you're going to be slapped down.  What do you expect?  Praise?  Respect?

Sob, sniffle, and complain all you like about what an awful person I am.  That's the price I must pay for not tolerating foolishness spewed in my direction.

Gavin is wrong; only pro-bloat votes count as pro-bloat.  Anti and DGAF both count as other-than-pro-bloat votes.

60% for Bloatcoin; 40% not for Bloatcoin.  The 20MB fork attempt will fail, if this poll is even a remotely accurate indicator.

Cheers!   

[NewLiberty]

5g internet will be rolling out in the next 2 years in the UK and Europe, speeds of 1GB+ per second have been achieved by Samsung  in south korea already..

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/shortcuts/2014/mar/10/david-cameron-wants-superfast-5g-internet-connection

4k.ultra hd streaming is already available....
Any problems larger blocks cause will be dealt with easily when the time is right

Sure, in a few high income neighborhoods in the first world, and in telco labs.  This was never at issue.  There have been faster speeds than this.

Ok, I understand.  You are GOD.  We are all fools.  You have convinced me.  Best of luck in life.

The difference between opt-in, and opt-out presumptions in bitcoinlandia notwithstanding, to me the most important issue remains "that to which we are being asked to opt, being insufficiently supported".

We have no roadmap to fixing the underlying issue, the arbitrary "patch" introduces new risks, and it is quantitatively unjustified.

[DeathAndTaxes]

If this was a real problem, why Satoshi didn't predict it and launch BTC at 20MB by default?

He actually launched it with no limit (gasp) although I guess you could call the max message restriction of 33.8MB a limit (although not very immutable).

[solex]

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.

Satellites, like ordinary nodes, are not individually trusted. It is the whole network which is to be trusted.

There is a distinction between "valid/worthwhile" and "junk/spam" transactions:
If >50% of the full nodes accept a transaction into their mempools, whether for a coffee or a car, then it is valid/worthwhile.
If >50% want to reject a particular transaction then it is junk/spam.

Fortunately IBLT will help make this a clearer process by encouraging strong consensus on unconfirmed tx.  For the record, my position is that micro-tx should be handled off-chain. Paying for a coffee is not a micro-tx, IMHO.

I've asked MP. While nobody can really know the future, turns out what we'll likely do is start an entirely new coin, this time guaranteed to never be hard-forked; not by a bunch of coder nobodies, but by MP himself. In practice that'll most likely work out to simply staying with the old version and replacing some code monkeys. This, mind you, not because we really care all that much if it's 1 Mb or 100 Gb, but because the precedent of hardforking "for change" is intolerable. We'll find ourselves in due time under a lot more pressure to fuck up Bitcoin than some vague "I can't manage to envision the future" sort of bs.

[my bold emphasis]

The reality of MP's position is that he does not want Bitcoin changed, which is why he runs an old version of Bitcoin Core, and has drawn a red line at the 1MB fork. He doesn't really care if the block limit is 1MB or 100GB, it's the principle of changing Bitcoin without MP's permission, which is unacceptable.

Anyone else who has an opinion on that can fill in the blank:  "________________".

[Come-from-Beyond]

Satellites, like ordinary nodes, are not individually trusted.

These satellites are controlled by USA govt. They can't fake data but they can stop broadcasting at any moment. You have to trust that Obama won't switch them off if you want to rely on them.