Topic: Analysis and list of top big blocks shills (XT #REKT ignorers) - page 50. (Read 46564 times)

Ya but WTF is this supposed to mean!? I mean, srsly ppl!

Just srsly

You don't like Socrates, do you?

Short answer: I think you missed the part of this thread when people slightly accepted that there's no absolute truth in this issue.

Nearly everyone here knows a dozen of arguments to counter your claims (and most of them have been discussed / strived at some point earlier)


This is some worst-case scenario. Maybe it will be good, maybe it will be desastrous. I depends upon if the split stays or closes. I think most exchanges should agree on one version, may it be small or big, and since miners are here for the money, they would follow he exchanges, and the other change would die quickly.

If the exchanges serve both chains - which is the economically rationale decision - then we'll find the markets in chaos. Best decision will be to sell instantly both coins and look like they crash. Maybe there will terrible double spend opportunities.

If miners decide for a chain, the other will die quickly.

it would be exciting, but could be really terrible. I hope the important people will be wise enough to accept and respect different oppinions. Bitcoin is designed to find a consensus or to break. Holding it together is not a technical challenge, but a political.

Yes and because it has doubled in value, miners will be incentivized to increase their operations. So that $5 lock becomes a $10 lock in your analogy.

You are saying that if we increase the blocksize at all it would lead to the very destruction of Bitcoin? This is such fear mongering it really is, an increase to two megabyte or even eight megabyte would not lead to the catastrophic scenario that you are describing.

First of all larger blocks would allow the Bitcoin network to become much more resistant to spam attacks, since it would make effectively overloading the network much more expensive. After all for the vast majority of Bitcoins history this blocksize limit has existed far below the actual transaction volume, these spam attacks have only become an issue recently since we are approaching this blocksize limit. Making it rather easy and cheap to overload the network, this would not be as easy or as cheap with an increased blocksize.

There are many prominent engineers and coders that think it will be fine to increase the blocksize, and that this was always the plan for Bitcoin. If it really is this obvious that any increase in the blocksize would destroy Bitcoin, why are all these good people like Gavin Andresen saying that this would not be a problem? Furthermore what is so special about one megabyte, it seems rather arbitrary to me, earlier in Bitcoins history it had a thirty two megabyte limit, this also did not lead to its destruction, or chaos and hard forks left and right as you describe. Bitcoin will do just fine, I think we should continue with the experiment and let it runs its course, not stop it in its tracks before it has even had a chance to prove itself.

But since the value of BTC has doubled, the thing that you're securing has doubled in value, so you need twice the security. If a $5 lock is just-good-enough to protect a $100 bike, is it also good enough to protect a $200 bike?

bargainbin your logic is sound this guy just can't grasp the idea.

I'm go cook here vote in my poll https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.13518719

It does matter if the "dollar" value of BTC has doubled since then. Since if hypothetically the value of Bitcoin doubles after the halving, then there is still the same amount being paid for security in terms of the "dollar" value compared to before the halving, the amount of Bitcoins being rewarded might have been reduced but the purchasing power for those Bitcoins would be the same. Which therefore means that the same amount is being paid for security by the Bitcoin protocol in terms of real value.

politically yes but financially I absolutely disagree. Larger blocks at this time could lead to massive spam attacks leading to massive and prohibitively demanding bandwidth requirements on our weakest nodes leading to first torrents of orphaned blocks then whole orphaned chains then hard forks left and right leading to chaos.

I guess I am being unclear.
We can measure denominate the cost of attack in BTC, fiat or old hubcaps, it doesn't matter.

Think of yourself as a burglar Swiper from Dora the Explorer.
You denominate your swiping effort in dollars. It currently costs you $1.10 of 'effort' to rob $1 from Dora's pocket (due to the security measures she has in place).
You're a pragmatic Swiper, swiping for profit rather than sport. After doing some quick back-of-envelope (also swiped) calculations, you realize it ain't worth it. You choose not to swipe.

But then Dora goes and cuts her security spending (in dollars) in half, and now it only costs you $0.55 to swipe a buck.
Wat do, Swiper?
Doe it matter if we replace "dollar" with BTC in this example?

P.S. To avoid complicated maths, model this at the limit, i.e. "the cost of mining 1 BTC is slightly less than market price of 1 BTC, as per satoshi's prognostication.

P.P.S: Which would you do:
1. spend 10 dollars to make five dollars
2. spend "five hundred and twenty million dollars" to make a billion dollars
(chose one)

This attack vector already exists today, and increasing the blocksize does not change this. I am not overly concerned with the possibility of fifty one percent attacks. The game theory of Bitcoin pretty much prevents this from becoming a serous threat in the first place. In the case of a government attacking Bitcoin, our best defense is to grow as quickly as possibly so that it makes this type of attack much more difficult both politically and financially.

Pardon me if I don't trust your back of the hand calculations, your assumptions and narrow minded view that ignores the possibility that a miner or hacked mining pool/pools might desire to attack the network just to short the price and turn a quick buck, is absurd. An attacker my already have a large stockpile of bitcoins, perhaps confiscated in a drug bust but who are you to set the limits on a theoretical attacker and their potential resources?

Since it does cost something for the miners to process transactions, increased orphan rate is one factor. Therefore if you want your transaction to be confirmed faster or even confirmed at all, you should include a fee. It is up to the miners to decide whether it is worth including your transactions or not. If it is worth including your transaction they will include it, if it is not they will not, just increase the fee until miners accept your transaction. This is the essence of the free market behind fees. There already is a free fee market and we do not need to introduce an arbitrary limit in order to impose this.

If it costs ~nothing for miners to process transactions (vs. mining empty blocks) & plenty of block space, why would I pay > satoshi tx fee?

The cost of the attack is measured in fiat. Since to buy and setup more then fifty one percent of the hashpower would cost more then two hundred and sixty million dollars (just ran a rudimentary calculation). If the price of Bitcoin however went up, it would in effect mean that the Bitcoin protocol is paying more for its security in terms of fiat or real world purchasing power. This would incentivize more miners to come into the ecosystem thereby increasing its security. Therefore it can be argued if the price of Bitcoin doubles that the security of Bitcoin would also double meaning that it would cost twice as much to attack the network, in this case for example it would cost more then five hundred and twenty million dollars, and this is just for the setup costs, not including maintenance or even electricity costs which would over the long term might even cost more then the machines themselves. Not to mention that the attacker would lose much more from such an attack then they could possibly ever gain.

Bitcon is permissionless, so you are perfectly free to purchase coffee if you pay an appropriate fee.

But you conflate market-rate fees with "elitism."  Thus, what you are actually rejecting are the fundamental economic concepts of trade-offs and limited resources/unlimited demand, in favor of your ideological 'Free Shit Army' attachment to endless subsidized entitlements.

Here is the video that I watched (multiple times). The slide was from this presentation: Mark Friedenbach - Alternatives to a Block Size Limit as a Rate-Limiter for Validator Resource Consumption for Consideration.

I dislike it as well.

It will not.

I find it more empowering then anything else. It is about standing up for our principles and doing what we believe is right, whether we are successful or not, at least we do the right thing. It is worth trying otherwise how would we ever know if it would work otherwise. This is the thing about political experiments as well, often either they work or they do not, with millions of life's at stake, yet I would argue that it is still worth it.

Or just that he understands the economics involved.


Bitcoin will be dead. Regardless of block size.