Bitcoin 20MB Fork

[AgentofCoin]

Mr Barron apparently worships not one but two false Gods.  Read everything he says in that light, cogitate, and prosper.

why always these coercive worshiping accusations? does it also implies the 'pro-fork' people worship gavin? why cant we just have a constructive talk about it without accusing one another of being a cultist?
seriously this is just ridiculous. grow up people.

*Speaking with a trembling loud voice*
"When the day of reckoning comes-forth and Satoshi descends from the heavens,
then you'll know and all users will know and see and ask... was I a good bitcoiner?
Am I my bitcoins keeper? And I say upon you all!... Are you your bitcoins keeper??"


Sorry Hdbuck, I had to say this after your post above, and the prior posts about being "your own bank". It just popped into my head.

[RoadStress]

Mr Barron apparently worships not one but two false Gods.  Read everything he says in that light, cogitate, and prosper.

why always these coercive worshiping accusations? does it also implies the 'pro-fork' people worship gavin? why cant we just have a constructive talk about it without accusing one another of being a cultist?
seriously this is just ridiculous. grow up people.

Stop being subjective. Let's do a small exercise. Please count the times Mr Barron replies with long/offtopic quotes from random sources/MP. Next please count the times he repeats already posted quotes. Now please compare it with the others. Thank you!

I'm sorry, maybe I don't understand where you're coming from, but why are you quoting Mircea Popescu? I admit I have not read this entire thread, so maybe there's a reason... but I don't see what value there is to quoting an insane, misogynistic, racist drug addict here?

He cares more about being accepted by MP and everything around him like MPex. He doesn't care for the good of Bitcoin, he only cares about his interest and MP interest apparently. Instead of wasting a lot of time reading the whole thread (which I do recommend for a full history) just check Mr Barron post history. Here is just one quote:

If the fork were to succeed somehow, I would be done with bitcoin. I'm not going to start supporting UnSavoryGarnish just because it's taken a trendier hippsterish form.

[iGotSpots]

Definitely not to squeeze out home users. All that will do is put the burden onto corporations that are dumping it straight to fiat to pay employees and bills

But it's ok to squeeze out the businesses that need a higher block limit? The businesses that actually help Bitcoin ecosystem grow?

There wouldn't be businesses if it wasn't individuals pushing it. Don't forget who got it where it is now. This whole thing is starting to become exactly what it was created to go against and it's quite sickening

This is a terrible idea. Bandaids on a gunshot doesn't fix the hole

Shit, just making it faster blocks is even a better idea to spread them out than this. It's not a matter of overall data that is the issue; it will obviously bloat. The problem is trying to process so much all at once. It's a straight up bump to people closest to the most nodes this way, exactly like stock bots

[NxtChg]

I don't think a response to this can be much worse than what was just written. Possibly the most narrow-minded solution ever. I suppose you like to put bandaids on gunshots, too; both are equally as stupid

Your post is "possibly the most narrow-minded [post] ever".

No refutation of any kind. Just "omg, omg, omg, this is so bad and stupid!!!!!11".

Shows your level, not his.

[iGotSpots]

I don't think a response to this can be much worse than what was just written. Possibly the most narrow-minded solution ever. I suppose you like to put bandaids on gunshots, too; both are equally as stupid

Your post is "possibly the most narrow-minded [post] ever".

No refutation of any kind. Just "omg, omg, omg, this is so bad and stupid!!!!!11".

Shows your level, not his.

Lol amateur spotted

I actually hope this change goes through so it gets knocked off the pedastel by stupid decisions

[danielpbarron]

If they can transmit transactions with a light client it's equal to having the banking software to me.Maybe I got it wrong but I know that nobody can spend your money without having the private key. A private key kept private makes it impossible for anyone else to spend your money.

That's "equal to having" a web browser that you can use to log into your bank's web site. So no, you aren't being "your own bank." You got it very wrong; they don't need to "spend your money" when they can rewrite history so that you never had any. They don't need your private key in order to create fraudulent coin bases that debase the unit of account.

I said nothing about the number of full bitcoin nodes being up or down. I said the number of PCs capable of running full nodes is increasing and will not be decreasing any time soon. Maybe one day it will, but this decade is not it, and I seriously doubt the next decade is, either.

If the block size limit were to increase, it would. But the fork ain't happening, so you're right.

Centralization can be good, especially in say e.g. mining. If mining pools did not exist and it was purely a peer-to-peer operation and a hard or even a soft fork happened that required immediate tending to, it would be virtually impossible to get enough clients to change in a fast enough time frame to save bitcoin. You'd have a massive hard fork and lots of angry people and a complete loss of confidence in bitcoin.

This is not a problem; miners will quickly find the correct chain because they have a lot of money to lose if they don't. Anybody who is mining and isn't aware of the politics of block chain rules is a fool that deserves to go out of business. The network itself is anti-fragile; it isn't going away just because of a disagreement. You're spinning this to sound like if it weren't for USGavin, bitcoin would wither and die. And who cares if "lots of angry people" lose confidence? Does someone who loses confidence in gravity magically start floating? They can whine all they want and then when they've tired themselves out, they can continue using bitcoin because there is no choice in the matter.

I'm not saying centralization is great, or even good. But it is the lesser of two evils in some instances and if it's a choice between a somewhat centralized bitcoin and no bitcoin at all, I'd say centralization falls on the side of good.

What even is the point of bitcoin if it's not decentralized? A centralized bitcoin is certainly "more evil" than no bitcoin at all simply because it's a self-defeating concept. This is what I mean by "trendier hipsterish." Is bitcoin nothing more than a way to pick up chicks to you? A nerdy new conversation starter instead of the world burner it truly is.

As for the counterbalance, one example is lined above. Having a centralized structure housed in 4 or 5 or even 15 top pools means if there's an attack or threat, the blockchain can evolve rapidly.

Having a "centralized structure" is the threat! An "evolving blockchain" is the threat! These were exactly the arguments used to create the Federal Reserve! Is that what you want? A new-age FED?

Neither is a perfect solution, but what I do know is that limiting the transaction volume to a paltry 1 MB is going to not only hurt bitcoin, but completely kill it as far as global, massive uptake goes.

And how do you "know" that? I see a lot of people making this assumption, but nobody has provided any evidence that it is true. Whereas, I have explained very thoroughly how bitcoin will do just fine with a fixed limit on the block size.

Off chain solutions are a brain dead solution to a problem that doesn't exist. The problem is how to fix bitcoin and make it scalable... not how to make new software to accomplish the same task but in a different way.

It isn't broken! It already scales just fine! The bitcoin you are imagining is exactly what you explain here: "new software to accomplish the same task but in a different way." You are imagining a hip new version of the Federal Reserve.

I'm sorry, maybe I don't understand where you're coming from, but why are you quoting Mircea Popescu? I admit I have not read this entire thread, so maybe there's a reason... but I don't see what value there is to quoting an insane, misogynistic, racist drug addict here? The guy has shown time and again that he has no idea what he's talking about and everything he has ever done in his life is complete garbage (just going by what I've read of and from him, so I could be incorrect). His quotes are like quoting "1, 2, 3, potato!" for all the value it brings.

Drug addict!? Oh this part of your post is so precious! MP will surely get a kick out of it.

[sed]

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!   

iCEBREAKER, I'm in love with you!  You know you had me at "sophmoric pedantry" xoxo <3

[CoinCidental]

I dont know MP but from what ive read he seems like a  knob jockey
Im with gavin on this one
MP and his  mother can go ride black cocks

[RoadStress]

That's "equal to having" a web browser that you can use to log into your bank's web site. So no, you aren't being "your own bank." You got it very wrong; they don't need to "spend your money" when they can rewrite history so that you never had any. They don't need your private key in order to create fraudulent coin bases that debase the unit of account.

If we can have trusted places where we can download software without the fear of them being infected with viruses/malware then we can have trusted operators/nodes so that some users can use only a lightweight client without burdening them with a full node requirement. You sound like this is something impossible, but it's far from being impossible. What's the use of every user running a full node if they can't trust the place where they download the Bitcoin Core software?

There are many different providers of hosted files and some are trusted (Firefox, Google, Bitcoin.org etc) and some are untrusted. A random invented example would be www.OptimizeMyPC.com that promises to speed up your computer if you download their tool which is filled with malware/trojans.

We can have this with Bitcoin nodes too. This is just another business opportunity and this is very easily doable.

Again nothing constructive from your posts. Just the usual MP quotes and the usual and useless "limiting stuff is better". You have a very limited and pessimistic vision about this whole ecosystem.

[BusyBeaverHP]

No limit, let the miners decide.

It's what they've been doing anyway and removing that silly 1MB limit is the best representative of a free market.

Whatever it is, this 1MB limit needs to go.

[iCEBREAKER]

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?

iCEBREAKER, I'm in love with you!  You know you had me at "sophmoric pedantry" xoxo <3

There you go!  Keep it light.  The cranky sourpuss thing doesn't suit you. 

Now send me chocolates!   

[danielpbarron]

No limit, let the miners decide.

It's what they've been doing anyway and removing that silly 1MB limit is the best representative of a free market.

You like the "free market," eh? Are you familiar with the "tragedy of the commons?" Miners get the benefit from making large blocks, and the rest of us bear the costs. I doubt you meant to advocate socialism, but that's what's going on here.


I suspect this double post thing is how spammers like RoadStress get their "activity" so high. Since I'm replying to someone else anyway, might as well attach this:

If we can have trusted places where we can download software without the fear of them being infected with viruses/malware then we can have trusted operators/nodes so that some users can use only a lightweight client without burdening them with a full node requirement.

If you're gonna just go trusting people, then why do you need your transaction on the block chain? The block chain is for when you don't trust anyone. You are arguing in favor of what amounts to security theater. People are worse off if they think simply having a private key is what makes their funds safe. Instead of them trusting a node to relay their petty transactions, they can just as well trust a bitcoin denominated bank to make a promise on their behalf. The banks can then settle balance differences in large chunks on a daily basis, thereby keeping the size of the block chain minimal. In this way, anybody can verify the process with an inexpensive node plugged into their home router. Whereas with your proposal, only a few wealthy people can verify the process despite everyone having access.

You have conceded that the common man will have to trust someone. Please stop with this nonsense that we must also make the block chain impossible for the common man to verify. It is not necessary to have both these results; only one is needed.

[R2D221]

I doubt you meant to advocate socialism, but that's what's going on here.

You say this as if it were a bad thing.

[danielpbarron]

I doubt you meant to advocate socialism, but that's what's going on here.

You say this as if it were a bad thing.

Socialism is a very bad thingⁱ; it is the sort of bad thing that bitcoin is here to destroy. If you desire socialism, what is it you are doing here on a forum about the most capitalist thing to ever fall into man's lap? The ideal money for a socialist is one which is centrally controlled, and with the Federal Reserve you have exactly that. So then what role do you see bitcoin having in a world in which money can be taken from the rich and given to the poor? It is no surprise that you are in favor of changing bitcoin if your goal is socialism; as it stands, unchanged, it makes such a thing impossibleⁱⁱ.


i :

ii : Bitcoin and the poor

Well... Bitcoin is absolutely nothing of the sort. Bitcoin doesn't make it easier for anti-capitalists, it makes it harder. Bitcoin doesn't make it easier for anti-corporatists, it makes it harder. Bitcoin especially does not make it easier for socialists, for those people that despise hierarchy and pretend equality : it makes it impossible. Plain impossible.

[hdbuck]

its more than time to end socialism.





freaking sheeps cant even see whats in front of them.
always bluhblah this and that. thinking they matter.

im here for the trustless technology, the decentralized consensus, which gives no more room for endless debates.
wanna fork bitcoin? go for it, it will only make my stash worth more..

[tvbcof]

I doubt you meant to advocate socialism, but that's what's going on here.

You say this as if it were a bad thing.

Socialism is a very bad thingⁱ; it is the sort of bad thing that bitcoin is here to destroy. If you desire socialism, what is it you are doing here on a forum about the most capitalist thing to ever fall into man's lap? The ideal money for a socialist is one which is centrally controlled, and with the Federal Reserve you have exactly that. So then what role do you see bitcoin having in a world in which money can be taken from the rich and given to the poor? It is no surprise that you are in favor of changing bitcoin if your goal is socialism; as it stands, unchanged, it makes such a thing impossibleⁱⁱ.
...

Initially I saw Bitcoin's strength as being one which induces the owners of the currency an incentive to make it work for 'the masses' since, at variance with the various state sponsored debt based monetary systems which are ubiquitous today, it would be relatively easy for 'the masses' to devalue a non-working system by switching to another.  The barrier would be much lower.

Back in those days I sort of called myself a socialist (especially when I was interested in trolling) on the basis of my belief that the best result for the most people would be had by the most people by working together as a social group for certain projects.  Money, though, would always be a power play in any quasi-democracy.  My plan had always been to switch away from socialism if it got the upper hand because of the obvious dangers of totalitarianism.  Since that time, I've decided that I vastly underestimated the power that socialism had achieved in my society (the U.S.)  Now is well past the time to fight it back!  I missed it, I feel, because it was masked by on overlay of cronyism which I (mistakenly) ascribed to capitalist-ish malfeasance.  We are descending into totalitarianism which is a predictable outcome of socialism (and most other solutions) and have gone farther and faster than I'd recognized.

Bitcoin itself never even came close to achieving a decent result for almost anyone and with USGavincoin it will go directly into the existing corp/gov quasi-socialist vortex where the existing power lies.  The masses do not pass go and does not collect $200.  Bitcoin will be destroy in exactly the same manner that I originally (and continue to) anticipate as healthy...it does not help people and they'll vote with their feet.  The next rendition will not be as easy since we'll be operating under a different form of 'global internet', but these challenges will ultimately only make it stronger.

Sidechains offer one last hope for Bitcoin proper with it providing a reserve role.  The various subordinate chains would offer the flexibility to successfully respond to attacks from the stakeholders in existing state-sponsored fiat solution and to meet the diverse needs of a broad userbase.  Under such a solution there is more opportunities for wealth to be distributed then we have in todays extremely high GINI, but in a more healthy way.  And, of course, the solution might persist for a long enough time period for this to occur.

[Cryddit]

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

This is bluntly wrong.  Read the 'agnostic/dgaf' votes as people who will go with whatever works and wins.  If the code for a fork is deployed, they'll go right on mining - possibly with new software that advertises a new block version, or possibly without updating.  If their client tells them that the majority of blocks out there are a new version and they risk being on the losing side of a fork if they don't upgrade, they'll upgrade, 'cause they don't want to be on the losing side of a fork.  If the software they upgrade to advertises a new block version, they don't give a crap but that could easily push support from 50% (where they got the warning) to 75% (where a >1Mbyte block can actually be formed).

And if they find themselves on the losing side of a fork with majority hashing power already supporting a different chain, they will FIX THE PROBLEM immediately by updating. 

'agnostic/dgaf' means that a choice between these options is not going to be the motivation that causes these people to do anything.  A risk of being on the losing side of a fork would certainly be a motivation they'd respond to.  Having some other reason to upgrade to the next version (or just upgrading because upgrading is "normal") is also something they'd do.  They just don't give a crap whether, by so doing, they choose one block size limit or another.

[Cryddit]

its more than time to end socialism.

As amusing as it is to see some idiot mistake Adolf Hitler for a socialist.....

I think we had reached the Godwin Limit long, long before this normally-reliable indicator appeared.

[R2D221]

its more than time to end socialism.

As amusing as it is to see some idiot mistake Adolf Hitler for a socialist.....

I think we had reached the Godwin Limit long, long before this normally-reliable indicator appeared.

Well, to be fair, the Nazi Party was “National Socialism”. But yeah, I agree that we're beyond the Godwin Limit.

[RoadStress]

I suspect this double post thing is how spammers like RoadStress get their "activity" so high. Since I'm replying to someone else anyway, might as well attach this:

You nailed it!

I am amazed how did you managed to pull one reply without sucking quoting MP.