Topic: Anti-fork guys: What is YOUR proposal? (Read 5433 times)

Regarding the OP...Easy.. Make users increase their transaction fee to compete to be one of the few who get into the next block (priority goes to the highest transaction fees).  That way, not only does the little guy get to keep his node (when he would have had to shut it down due to increased expenses following this centralization hard fork), but he might be able to make money mining again as the transaction fees increase making it valuable for the little guy to mine (just like he used to do back in the glory days of bitcoin).  But that solution (among many others I have brought up) brings decentralization back into bitcoin (and we want that), but since we are not in control here, then we will not get what we want (profitable mining again for the little guy).  Instead we will receive centralization.

There's about 3.2 billion reasons why a larger block altenative isn't already launched.  The assumption is that this change to the protocol should be accepted by existing Bitcoin users, miners, exchanges, wallets, etc. and thus the $3.2 market cap would transfer in its entirety to the hardfork side.     But this Bitcoin-XT (specifically, the change to support larger blocks) should simply be considered as being a new coin -- one with initial distribution (premine) such that 1 UTXO exists in the new coin for each UTXO that existed in Bitcoin at the time of the hard fork.

The only way for the new coin to have any chance of having an impact is if it captures all the existing traction and momentum that Bitcoin has received to-date.

Sure, that's a lofty goal.   Essentially, those pushing this new coin (BTX) want to gamble with our bitcoins (BTCs).

Maybe the solution is to simply treat this new coin  .... as a new coin, difficulty 1, and no premine.

There's about 3.2 billion reasons why a larger block altenative isn't already launched.  The assumption is that this change to the protocol should be accepted by existing Bitcoin users, miners, exchanges, wallets, etc. and thus the $3.2 market cap would transfer in its entirety to the hardfork side.     But this Bitcoin-XT (specifically, the change to support larger blocks) should simply be considered as being a new coin -- one with initial distribution (premine) such that 1 UTXO exists in the new coin for each UTXO that existed in Bitcoin at the time of the hard fork.

The only way for the new coin to have any chance of having an impact is if it captures all the existing traction and momentum that Bitcoin has received to-date.

Sure, that's a lofty goal.   Essentially, those pushing this new coin (BTX) want to gamble with our bitcoins (BTCs).

Maybe the solution is to simply treat this new coin  .... as a new coin, difficulty 1, and no premine.

 The fork will not fill instantly, the "little guy" will be fine keeping his node, he may just have to get a bigger hard drive in a couple of years but that should be a lot cheaper due to storage medias ever dropping $/GB.

I don't see how it will bring decentralization? Just because a few less gigabytes over years? Profitable mining for the little guy has and always will be dependent on external factors (Such as location, electric price, hardware price).

The idea you give just clogs the network forcing anyone who doesn't want to pay large fees to switch to an altcoin, if this went through I would be very happy to be a litecoin bag holder.

First, we must wait and see how the infrastructure and ecosystem react/adapt to scarcity.   Without this crucial empirical data, we cannot make informed future decisions about ideal block sizing.  We cannot risk a civil war between BTC1 and BTC2 camps by forcing the issue prematurely (but if I were actually anti-BTC and pro-alt, I'd relish such a Great Schism).

Second, we must use the results of the experiment with 1MB scarcity to decide on a preliminary blocksize increase, to somewhere between 2MB and 10MB.

20MB blocks can then be considered, if and only if the community, pruning/compression mechanisms, and TOR/DSL are ready to support them.

As a compromise, I'll support an increase to 2MB ASAP, on the condition that we then maintain that limit until facts about market reaction to block real estate scarcity are ascertained.

I'd be OK with closing the loop by doubling block size when block reward halves.

Ditto... I do not know if mandatory fees and blockchain cleaning has been addressed, and I hope it will be at some point... However, even if all transactions are paid for and junk-free we still nowhere near scalability of other payment networks like Visa / MasterCard https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Scalability

I also think Bitcoin is entering level of maturity and acceptance where "forking" might become the biggest obstacle to it's growth... And this is not going to get any better with time. This was one of the counter-arguments of Peter T. to Galvin A. block size increase proposal... Other side wants to find a graceful and permeant solution which will not require hard forking every few years. Unfortunately, this solution is nowhere to be seen at the moment, at least not practical anyway.

Interesting theory, but users vote for everything.

If the Bitcoin users like Gavin's idea better, then it will become the dominant fork, or vice versa. I'd say that is probably the greatest form of representation. We represent ourselves.

Miners are providing a service.

Core devs are groups of individuals who build on Bitcoin. If you don't like what they are doing, as I said before you can choose not to use their work, you can choose to work on Bitcoin yourself, you can really do whatever you want.

I understand the concept, if the 1mb blocksize is kept, people will have to compete to get their transactions onto a block.

Currently Bitcoin operates as a state: all bitcoin holders are taxed (it's property tax in form of inflation tax), then the taxes are distributed between miners.
While nodes are supposed to work for free, for the good of the community. All problems are handled by core developers and miners.

So
-We are taxed citizen (taxation without representation).
-Miners are tax-receiving fatcats and IRS rolled together.
-Nodes are conscious volunteers.
-Core devs is parliament that issues laws (block limit etc).
-Enforcement goes though threat of forking.

That's a socialist system. Why should we have it?

What is suggested instead is capitalism: nodes, miners and users provide services to each other for money. All the questions such as block size, number of nodes, compensation to miners and nodes are settled by the demand-supply laws. No political games, no enforcement is required, just free market.

EDIT: nodes are ...

Just reading from your summary not sure if this is the problem being addressed here... Potential problem is a growing number of blockchain transactions and inability to pack them all into small 1Mb blocks, essentially running out of processing capacity. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Is anybody discussing this proposal?
In case nobody does, here is the link.

http://bitcoinism.liberty.me/economic-fallacies-and-the-block-size-limit-part-1-scarcity/
http://bitcoinism.liberty.me/economic-fallacies-and-the-block-size-limit-part-2-price-discovery/

The author suggestion is (if I get it correctly) instead of using artificial restrictions, use natural market forces to regulate it.
Currently all new minted bitcoins go to miners. Nodes do their work for free, while carrying expenses (bandwith etc). That is cost of maintaining network goes to nodes, while benefits - to miners and users. That's why number of nodes goes down. The author suggests enabling nodes to charge miners and users for their services. Everyone will be able to earn bitcoins by running a node. It'll fix both the problems: of block size and of node centralization.

I think it is the ideal solution. Pity Satoshi didn't implemented it in the first place. But it's not too late to do it now. Is anybody working on it?

Upping the transaction fees has a backslash: It will centralize Bitcoin in the sense of it will become a more and more elitist payment system as fees goes up, to the point only the wealthy can use it, when in fact Bitcoin is at it's best when operating in severely impoverished countries without banking infrastructures. You don't want to make the fees higher because those people would really suffer from it even if for us is not that much.

Regarding the OP...Easy.. Make users increase their transaction fee to compete to be one of the few who get into the next block (priority goes to the highest transaction fees).  That way, not only does the little guy get to keep his node (when he would have had to shut it down due to increased expenses following this centralization hard fork), but he might be able to make money mining again as the transaction fees increase making it valuable for the little guy to mine (just like he used to do back in the glory days of bitcoin).  But that solution (among many others I have brought up) brings decentralization back into bitcoin (and we want that), but since we are not in control here, then we will not get what we want (profitable mining again for the little guy).  Instead we will receive centralization.

Of course, my simple and elegant solution is not the best for the Gavinode, and therefore will not be implemented.  All we can do as bitcoin holders is sit and watch as our monetary system becomes more centralized with each and every (TPS increase for your "benefit") hard fork.  There is value in the bitcoin transactions, but it is not for you to be able to mine.  By keeping the transaction fees low (more TPS but cheap transactions instead of fewer expensive transactions), Gavin ensures that only the big miners can compete for fees and block rewards, and therefore all mining profits must go to the Gavinode:


"Making the protocol process transactions with the largest fees first" is a fair solution that maintains our decentralization, however, we do not have any control over what developments will occur to our bitcoin protocol now, and will only have less control over our money in the future.  Is this what Satoshi envisioned?

There are many political bitcoin laws that can be passed to bring back the glory days of decentralized and profitable mining for all, but these laws will not be passed because we cannot vote for them.

Yes I am against this proposed centralization fork because I don't mind bitcoin being digital gold (valuable and costing a few cents extra to transmit).  Let another coin be the highly circulated silver digital currency used for microtransactions.  I go for the gold!

Gold is not good for microtransactions, but it is the best store of wealth.  Unless we adopt a more radical hard fork, then we cannot have both:

Of course we could have our cake and eat it too.  This is 2015, and it is more than possible, it is proven (but that would mean that we would have to become more wealthy than we were at the bitcoin peak in 2013)(and by the looks of it, nobody here likes money or wants to get rich and quit their day jobs):
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1078009.0;all