Topic: Bitcoin 20MB Fork - page 56. (Read 154787 times)

I wonder if we are starting to see, that this problem cannot be solved through debate, and it cannot be solved with statistics, reason, and maths...

This suggests a different kind of solution.

http://www.coindesk.com/juniper-research-bitcoin-transactions-double-2017/

A couple years according to these researchers.  Double our current average and we still aren't at 1MB.

It is not about protecting people from anti-competitive practices which is the primary story being sold by the statists that seek yet another restriction on commercial freedom. 
Not only are there are already sufficient laws for that, it is not happening, it is only in the imagination of those that seek to claim more authority.

Politicians like building bridges where there are no rivers.


So what do you think it is actually about?  Surveillance of MPLS tagging (ostensibly to prevent QoS), or just another power grab?

I agree with some of this and while I think 20MB is fine , I don't like the notion of automatically incorporating code to keep raising the limit within this hard fork. It isn't exactly clear if this is what is intended of those tests are merely hypothetical tests for the future. If we have to keep increasing the block limit,fine, but I prefer the resistance of a hard fork each time to encourage us to use other solutions first and foremost. My concerns have more to do with bandwidth, TOR, and network propagation than disk space and there are some legitimate concerns if we don't balance this right.

I am also open to the idea of making the adjustments scale slowly up to 20, or taking a previous 2 week average and multiplying the average by 3 times to dynamically set the block limit as others have suggested with a upper hard cap between 20-50MB while we see if sidechains can provide another solution.

Unfortunately, I don't believe there is time to properly test and incorporate merkle tree pruning before we need to increase the block limit, but that should be a focus as well as using invertible Bloom filters .

To me, this is the helpful kind of dialogue.

Is it possible (sir), that this is the issue.  For example thinking from the perspective of say an engineer, whether we are looking at the pyramids or bitcoin, and we are trying to reverse engineer them to make sense of them...where as such a reverse perspective may be the exact reason we cannot understand the problem and the "solutions" that arose to (re)them?

Is there a way to see this all exactly for what it is, without these different hats we wear?  

If I were running the show I'd rush right over to the Blockstream guys and try to form an alliance which fosters sidechains and hope they didn't slam the door in my face.  I'd also abandon the notion, and as temporarily as possible, that there is not an 'impure' expedient means of dealing with eventualities and would take a chance that openness and credibility would instill enough confidence to carry the effort through (to a clearly dominant position.)  My ideal Bitcoin would anticipate days-long confirmations which would be enough time to deploy almost any sort of patch needed.

MP's going to do what he's going to do, but I'd be highly inclined to have the pogo's be free (in the software sense) and open.  Part of it would be principle, but another part would be directed toward the effort of gathering confidence.  Mostly it would be because it's awfully difficult to release bug-free code, and particularly when it is complex (if relatively well tested) and under attack by smart people.  I might be inclined to install a kill fuse of some sort which would be (to me) a legitimate demand for the guy paying the bills.  Something like that the device has to ping mothership occasionally and will melt down if not successful (and mothership would know if the device has been being naughty.)

All this stuff shifts away from 'purity' which I value on philosophical grounds, but I'm more of an engineer than a philosopher.  It would be a minor miracle if Bitcoin survives the years long three-pronged Vessenes/Andreson/Hearn attack so I'll bend my principles a bit to try to provoke that outcome.  Especially if there was a clear path to such unsightly things being temporary.

You see, we think we are fighting about something worth fighting about, as if debate is needed to solve this problem.  But what we don't realize is we are faced with a PARADOX. And paradox's arise when we are holding an assumption that isn't founded, or in other words "religion".  Peoples want to push my words aside, as if they are meaningless. But over and over we will see I am the only one that has done their homework.  We need to re write the story of what bitcoin is and how and why it came about.

What is "byzantine money", and what is its significance?


What is money that is free from inflationary decadence, and like gold but not gold?


How does one approach the implementation of a money that is politically hard to achieve?


A "politically neutral form of a technological utility":


Do we see why we are fighting? We have cognitive bias at play, does anyone see this?

So how much hashing power are you going to have on your new alt? Do you have any plans for changing the difficulty retarget shortly after the hardfork?

Some genuine advice to help you in your efforts.... perhaps your efforts would be better spent at convincing the mining pools operators and mining clients from this upgrade or buying up over 5% of hashing power? At minimum design those "pogos" so they can be upgraded if needed in case the hard fork goes through(I know, you don't believe it is going to happen.... but you should always plan for these "black swan " events)

For years The Bitcoin Foundation has focused on solutions and frameworks which would destroy the P2P nature of Bitcoin's basic support model with a steady chorus of people crowing about how the great Lord Satoshi always wanted the support infrastructure to eventually be relegated to specialists.  That was not the outward public PR which still leveraged 'peer-2-peer' line heavily, but any internal questions went directly to that line of argument.

Now all of a sudden the BF seems to have belatedly found religion and are subsidizing nodes after seeing what the MP folk are up to.  Hilarious.  I would put the odds at right around zero that these subsidies last more than one day past when the exponential growth patch is ensconced.

Satoshi was either jacking everyone off with his projections of a centralized system in which case it was a clever use of resources, or he meant what he's (supposedly) said in which case he's was kind of ignorant.  One way or another I cannot help but look forward to actually showing people why decentralization is associated with robustness rather than trying to explain it to a bunch of semi-tards.  Especially if MP and co are doing the heavy lifting.

Another possibly relevant piece of information (although incomplete still) might be the countries that are participating in this dialogue.  For example, we might understand why Greece couldn't be here today, yet we might feel Venezuela should be interested (Costa Rica is probably rather a lost and confused poker player, than someone interested in the dialogue)

Maybe there are more extrapolations to be made...

No you see, I am not a muppet, I have "proof of work".  I would have to be the most elaborate puppet/muppet ever created, and for what purpose?  I am either Szabo, or some punk kid that had a realization...there is no other explanation of my works.  You've been revealed, you need to go back and do your homework, and the best place to start would be for you to read TWON.

Mistake ....yeah, that's the ticket.... sure, buddy...
So how often do you make "mistakes" which suggest the exact opposite of what you said before ?



In reality, I could care less if those nodes are intended to partly prevent the hardfork as you originally stated and are now denying. I was just amused that your previous suggestion was considered a serious threat to preventing the hard fork.

I like the idea of those 10k nodes, but they look underpowered for the bitcoin to come so I will be planning to deploy nodes properly equipped to handle the future transactions that our ecosystem needs.

I do have a few more points to relevate and some more useful information.  First I should say this is to me, exactly a poker problem.  A game of strategy's and bluffs (if there can ever be such a thing; and/or whether credible and not credible), and imperfect information.  I have throughout my life had a talent for immediately intuiting solutions, unfortunately often leaving me an inability to explain myself. I do see the solution here, or the end game, but it is quite difficult for me to explain. I think we have been moving along towards it though.

It might be helpful to understand how I came to truly know about bitcoin.  I had gotten into a discussion with some poker players about what it means to say "nash equilibrium", and I was being ridiculed for only having the hollywood understanding of it.  My point was rather that others do not have the correct perspective to understand the relation between what they understood about the NE and what I understood about it. I wanted to understand more what the issue was (whether me or them), and so I dove deep into the related works surrounding the NE.  I had also touched on the lecture "ideal money" and although I new it would be signfiicant one day, I wasn't sure its relevance.

I was then reading "the bargaining problem", another solution put forth by nash about the value of money in barter to society, and I ask myself (as I often do), "What is the next evolution of money?", and I was staring at this picture:



And then it just hit me.  Bitcoin is the next evolution of these graphs.  And so we must understand something, I would have eventually created bitcoin had it not existed...or more importantly unless we think I'm smarter than Nash (absurd!)...He had this realization in 1955 (in one conceptual form or another).  

Yes you are some sort of conspiracy theorist. If I have made a mistake, it was in suggesting that the pogo is meant to combat a hard-fork. The hard-fork isn't going to happen. The mythology comment was in reference to the "ten thousand nodes" thing.



Shut. Up. Nobody except you is talking about some stupid book. This is further proof of your muppetry. You are desperately trying to make this thread about anything except the fact that there will be no hard-fork, and that Gavin will never work in bitcoin again.

Ok here is the thing.  You mentioned something about me stringing words together:

But it become quite clear to me that you have not understood the material in the Wealth of Nation so much so, that I am "pretty sure" that you haven't read the book https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10472883

Furthermore, we all know I am the only one here (again I looked forward to being contested) that is familiar with 20 years of lectures on the topic of "Ideal Money".  http://sites.stat.psu.edu/~babu/nash/money.pdf

So what we have revealed through dialogue, is that you have not even traversed the most relevant and significant material to this subject. And so now we understand why my words and points read like gibberish to you, but we should not necessarily take that to mean that I'm speaking irrelevently.

Your own words contradict yourself as you have already admitted that part of the purpose of these nodes is to prevent  the hardfork , than begin to lie by claiming I am making up mythologies and alluding to the fact that I am some conspiracy theorist.


Regardless, I support any project which aims to create more nodes whether it be from TBF or from nubbins. You have been caught in a lie, and the honorable thing to do is admit it and move on with this discussion.


So which is it? Is part of the purpose of these 10k nodes to prevent the hard fork or not? Were you lying before or now?

How have I contradicted myself? The purpose of the device is to increase bitcoin security. Gavincoin is not bitcoin.

In order for the device to support the fork, it would have to cost several times more. As it stands, the thing will probably cost somewhere between 20 and 100 dollars (not including the cost of electricity and bandwidth), and it will take weeks if not months to sync with the network.

From your own mouth:


So my comments are specifically supported by your own statements. Do you care to retract your statement now and be more honest with the community?

Considering this is the amount of new content you added to the thread in your last spam-wall-of-a-post, can you still tell me with straight face that you aren't a paid USG muppet?

I think now we are starting to think together!