Topic: Bitcoin 20MB Fork - page 5. (Read 154785 times)

I think it will be 4-1 in reality
Before i did any research on it I voted that I was undecided

Now I.know the details I would have voted yes and I'm sure I'm not the only one who didn't have enough info to make an informed choice when this thread was started

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

Formal logic != statistics.

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


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.

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.'   

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

Sidechains.

Bitcoin does not know nor care about the 'adaptation' (which can happen on multiple fronts simultaneously) and they can in principle be a near to a perfect proxy for space in the native Bitcoin blockchain desired.  And, or course, if one really needs an ultra-high level of security, one can always just use native Bitcoin and pay what this kind of security is worth.

You are so despicable. Those people can just use a 3rd party shared wallet if they are so disinterested in actually keeping a full copy of the ledger. What is the difference from their point of view? Whereas the difference from your point of view is clear: your handlers want the full ledger to be as centralized as possible so that maybe they can corrupt it!

Indeed.  And if we do start hitting full blocks on a regular basis, people will suddenly become far less agnostic and will definitely "GAF" when their transactions take longer to confirm.  It would be far nicer, however, to avoid that rather unfortunate turn of events and fix it before it becomes an issue.



This is the part they're struggling with.  After at least three threads and who knows how many hundreds of pages, they still can't suggest a viable alternative that doesn't involve providing a second-tier service to the majority of users.  Quick to say the sky is falling and make idle threats to protect their own petty interests, but slow to provide an alternative that doesn't benefit them at the expense of everyone else. 

Finally a reasonable question:


The problem people are worried about if the maximum block size is too high:  That big miners with high-bandwidth, high-CPU machines will drive out either small miners or I-want-to-run-a-full-node-at-home people by producing blocks too large for them to download or verify quickly.

An adaptive limit could be set so that some minority of miners can 'veto' block size increases; that'd be fine with me.

But it wouldn't help with "I want to be able to run a full node from my home computer / network connection." Does anybody actually care about that? Satoshi didn't, his vision was home users running SPV nodes and full nodes being hosted in datacenters.

I haven't looked at the numbers, but I'd bet the number of personal computers in homes is declining or will soon be declining-- being replaced by smartphones and tablets. So I'd be happy to drop the "must be able to run at home" requirement and just go with an adaptive algorithm. Doing both is also possible, of course, but I don't like extra complexity if it can be helped.

It is hard to tease out which problem people care about, because most people haven't thought much about the block size and confuse the current pain of downloading the chain initially (pretty easily fixed by getting the current UTXO set from somebody), the current pain of dedicating tens of gigabytes of disk space to the chain (fixed by pruning old, spent blocks and transactions), and slow block propagation times (fixed by improving the code and p2p protocol).


PS: my apologies to davout for misremembering his testnet work.

PPS: I am always open to well-thought-out alternative ideas. If there is a simple, well-thought-out proposal for an adaptive blocksize increase, please point me to it.

And twisting logic, such as claiming that people who voted agnostic/DGAF are automatically against the fork.

What you are missing it that if the fork is actually made, blocks compatible with the 20 MB fork only will come after 75% of the nodes have announced themselves that they will be ready for the fork. So, either this happens and it's more profitable to mine on the 20 MB chain, or this doesn't happen and nobody will be mining on the 20 MB chain.

No signs of death here.  Those who want to stay behind are more than welcome to.  They claim that their 1MB chain will end up superior and yet they keep pleading page after page for us to stick around and not leave them behind.  Doesn't sound like they have much confidence in their words.  One way or another, the forward momentum will carry on.  

Then you are biased and not analyzing the proposals themselves.

Actually, what you can't do is prove that you can't prove a statement. But this is from Gödel's Second Incompleteness Theorem. I don't know how this is related to statistics.

No probs!

Is it true?  Is Bitcoin so delicate that mere dissension in the ranks creates visible indicators of its premature mortality?

No silly, get a grip.

BITCOIN >> Gavin's random numbers

Antifragile means these struggles make the system stronger.

People squashing Gavin's forward moving ideas. Oh dear, BTC showing early signs of death.

If a big business wants something, regardless of what that business is, I tend to want the opposite.

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.

---

Hahahahahaha! Of course your fellow UnSavoryGarnish agree! Next you're gonna come in here saying a majority of senators support your proposal. You are scum, and there is a tree in a pine forest somewhere with your name on it.

Let's assume the prices of bitcoin and gavincoin diverge because of the shorting and that you can sell one bitcoin for two gavincoins.

If you support the original bitcoin you'll mine on the original chain.

Now if you think gavincoin will prevail, it's still more profitable to mine on the original chain, because whatever you mine, it will ultimately yield two gavincoins for every original bitcoin you mine.

And obviously, by doing so you're strengthening bitcoin at the expense of gavincoin. The value of a coin attracts mining, which in turns increases the value of this coin against the other.

Because 20 megs wasn't necessary at the beginning.  It is designed to be scalable, however, so yes, Satorshi did predict the need to increase the size at some point.