Topic: Analysis and list of top big blocks shills (XT #REKT ignorers) - page 55. (Read 46564 times)

You need at least two known values to be able to extrapolate unknown values.

This guenie slide uses just one value, 1 MB with 30 seconds as the latest time any node process a block today. Then just says lets extrapolate unknown values 3 MB, 8 MB with function O(n^2).

This is bad science, you need at least two known values like 0.5 MB and 1 MB with corresponding propagation time to all nodes in order to create estimation of the function for any unknown values like 3 MB or 8 MB. Obviously the more know values you have (over 2), the more precise function you can create and the more reliable extreme far unknown values like 8 MB becomes.

But the slide is big fail with just one 1 MB known value and presented function which comes not from fit with at least two known values but just from author willd guess, thus the obvious and eye catching absurd 3 MB and 8 MB propagation time predictions.

The network effect only has value when the utility of Bitcoin is better than the alternative. Artificially making Bitcoin less useful (high fees), makes alternatives more useful. It may take years to fully sacrifice the utility of the FMA, but if you do, don't be surprised if your first mover advantage turns out to be just as beneficial as it was to myspace, ashes between your fingers.

Of course there are limits, limits to be decided by miners that expend energy to create blocks. Creating megablocks that choke the network (and make your block stale in the process) is not the greatest concern here. Satoshi understood free market incentives, he designed the system around them, it's a shame to see an arbitrary malicious miner protection measure corrupt them in such a brutal fashion.

I refuse to take fear mongering in the form of government intervention seriously while a few phone calls and door knocks from the PRC would be nearly lights out. WRT major govts, we had/have two options... security through obscurity, or security through ubiquity.

if by 'reduce the fee' you mean prevent it from becoming prohibitively large to the point where Bitcoin can't scale, then yes, we want to prevent that and help Bitcoin scale.


 

Alt coins with less security and reliability and staying power, alt coins with less recognized value (the network effect) and thus fewer places to spend said coins.
People may choose to use other alt coins as the Bitcoin transaction fee grows but Bitcoin with its place as the first and the most reliable, dependable digital currency will be the flag ship of a whole fleet of new alt coins. If an alt coin shows it can be more stable and reliable with lower fees then those changes will be incorporated into Bitcoin but not before. Bitcoin is Borg it will take the best aspects of the lesser alt coins and incorporate them into itself.


Bitcoin or any other Crypto currency has yet to do battle with a government body, we need to keep our eye on the real threat, government intervention. A war is coming and if the bitcoin network should fall all crypto currency's will suffer as a result. We could be set back decades.

I cant understand how coin with high fees can have better adoption (number of people using it), when there will be cheaper altcoin alternative (fees)... Can such coin just be used for international remitance players instead ? Well why not look for a cheaper alternative instead again ? Ok, and what about store of value, at least. Why would you store your value on a coin when the coin can hardly to be used for anything ?

As I see it, if you cap how much coin can be used (number of transactions), people just use other coins for the same purpose, and just stop caring about Bitcoin or even consider storing value there, just like you do today with random altcoin or coin you have no use for.

I know what you are talking about thus I will not comment on miner's gambling mind set.   

The argument for a large block is to reduce the fee for average users, but what if a small block is better for bitcoin's adoption? See my post above

Ok fine, but the additional hops don't have anything to do with the miner himself and how long it takes him to propagate his winning block in the first place.
Therefore my point is still valid:  The small-blocker argument of 'geographic centralization will happen with bigger blocks due to internet speed descrepencies' doesn't really hold water.

Actually, I have a question that you might be able to answer for me.

If two miners get their blocks out at roughly the same time, and one has a slightly longer chain (not an additional block but just a lower hash/more work/more transactions/higher difficulty -- you know what i'm trying to say) , do nodes throw out the first one and use the second one?

Each node connects to 8 nodes, and each of these 8 nodes connect to another 8 nodes, and so on. But some of these connections are duplicated, so it will take several hop before a block is relayed to majority of the nodes, 4-5 hops maybe. When you have 8 seconds for a block transfer and the block verify time of 8 seconds, the nodes on the far end of the network would receive it in 80 seconds, which is a significant delay

Let's first imagine the ideal bitcoin blockchain done by aliens: It takes 1 second to receive and verify each block, takes 1MB hard drive space, and can carry unlimited amount of transactions in 10 minutes    Then you add those real world limitations on it and see which part you can compromise

I wholeheartedly agree that the definition of "better" varies.  I disagree that every participant is highly motivated to make the "system" better, because to me that infers a sort of moral and fair approach.  I don't see that.  I see manipulation, censorship, lies, misdirection.   Of course that is my opinion based on my observations.  And while others may have different opinions - I sort of like mine for a simple reason.... I am one of the rare people without an agenda loyalty to any of the specific paths.  I dislike XT for many reasons, but primarily because it is lazy.  It does not encourage much thought into the ongoing design of bitcoin.  It just says, make the blocks so big it is disgusting, and pack Pack PACK them with all the crap you can think.  And yes, I do think that leads to a much faster  centralization that bothers me.   I dislike 1mb because it is a blatant crippling of the possibilities, and I say blatant because there is a CLEAR Conflict of Interest involved.

I agree and disagree in various ways with your last 2 sentences.  I think a middle of the road compromise, increasing to 2 mb, and building in a few years of slow, measured increases, then capping it ---WOULD BE ACCEPTED by a Huge Majority.  And I am not a super tech in this, but I have read and watched and studied more than most, and I just don't see that a middle road solution would be threatening at all - IF we could get a decent consensus.  ALL it would take is someone willing to DO IT.  I mean, if it were thrown out like XT - and triggered by the same "voting" mechanism - then I honestly think that it would get the 750 blocks.  And I also think that most of Core-Dev is perfectly aware of that.  That is why the tricks, censorship, lying manipulations etc..... no one with Commit Auth will do it.  I honestly think it would have to be Gavin.  And it WOULD work.

And ALL paths would be given reasonable growing room to explore possibilities.  And at that point in the future that whatever small, measured increase in size hits the new cap - then there will be CLEARER data.  And perhaps there is a then a fight for another increase path - or perhaps sidechains are actually ready and built out and widely so entrenched that they are doing their job and no more increases are necessary.  Most likely it would be that sidechains would be established, and well received, but also direct bitcoin use as currency would be established, and another short ramp up in blocksize would be implemented.  But we wouldn't have to fear centralization because we'd have time and data to tell us what to do - along with the expected technological advances that would be coming along with the added time gained.  And there might even be something NEW we haven't even seen yet that emerges.  Something we'll NEVER see if we can't even at least explore this new technology a bit instead of crippling it right out of the womb!

I have a feeling that bitcoin will eventually overcome all these difficulties and prove that a decentralized system has its own decision making intelligence

In a centralized system like presidential election, nearly half of the people do not vote since they don't like any of those candidates or they don't care who rules. However the participants in a decentralized system all cares about the system development and running related issues, since these directly affect their own business

This means every participants here are highly motivated to make the system better. Of course the definition of better varies drastically from person to person, but unless they can reach a major consensus, they are not going anywhere. They can just fork as they will, and their fork will become an alt-coin and value crash to almost nothing. So after several such try, they will eventually agree that consensus is the king, they will try to make compromise and try to listen to other's idea until they finally find a major consensus that everyone can live with

It takes time to reach consensus. It is very easy to reach consensus on 1+1=2 since it does not take more than a few minutes to explain to the most illiterate person. But to reach consensus on if Segwit or 8MB block is a good idea, these are very time consuming task due to the complexity they involved, and it will take much longer time to reach agreement among all the major stake holders, maybe never. I guess only small changes have a chance to reach consensus

you know nothing noob

I support the freedom of choice and I'm against censorship.
I found and I loved Bitcoin because of this, but during the last times I see both things going on the opposite side.
I think that Theymos has burned his mind or he was the wrong person from the beginning, I hope that some light will turn back in him.

I did:



Oh yeah, I have to pay 1+ USD per transaction to be able to use Bitcoin in decentralized way while you can run full nodes on your obsolete hardware before Raspberry Pi's and old laptops naturally breaks down. But I have bad news for you, if there become constant demand for Bitcon decentralized onchain transactions higher than is blocksize capacity, the transaction fee skyrockets more quickly than you think up to a point where people give up and equilubrum is reached (might be higher than 1-5 USD). So not only it doesnt sound there is ready plan for automatic increase of blocksize because when it happens it is not many years or even many months process, and the pain to use Bitcoin will be high at these times  (unless your happy offchain user), but your obsolete hardware will not be enought to run full node much sonner than you think anyway. Really clever idea! Hail to our new clever rulers who choosing the best for all of us.