Topic: Bitcoin 20MB Fork - page 57. (Read 154787 times)

Aight cool. So there won't ever even be a 'gavincoin'.




Not that I'm unamused by the mythology growing around our efforts, but this just isn't true. The pogo project is just one of many ways #bitcoin-assets is actually supporting bitcoin. We recognize that the security of the network depends on a proliferation of full nodes, and that there is a shortage of full nodes. Rather than flap our hands about codebase changes that would hinder the spread of full nodes, we are producing an inexpensive unit that anyone can plug into their router to help secure the network. And even this, you retards manage to spin as a bad thing.




No because screw you.

No i most certainly do not.

Yes, Bitcoin could do something like that.  Blockchain pruning has been discussed.  Just issuing a new 'genesis block' containing all extant unspent txouts occasionally is the simplest brute-force blockchain pruning strategy.

This is very interesting. So is this in the source code? That the fork will only happen if 95% of the miners switch. Kinda like the 21 million bitcoin limit.

Couldn't Bitcoin just do something like Clams and Start with a new BlockChain with all addresses in the first Block and get rid of that 6 years worth of Bloat?

How amazing would it be to just eliminate like 50 Terabytes of data

The motivations and reward structure for the miners are extremely relevant.  The Nash equilibrium is about distribution of resources, and is not affected by an increase in the supply of a resource that is currently plentiful enough that it hasn't materially affected the dynamics of equilibrium yet.  

This proposed fork would not disturb their present equilibrium, but actually being limited by the block size limit when the time comes that they want to create larger blocks definitely would.  If they find a new equilibrium in which the limitation on block size plays a role, then the proposed fork would disturb that new equilibrium.

Does it matter? An army of nodes with no hashing strength is essentially no different than any alt. They really should be buying up ASIC's if they want to keep bitcoin slow.

Keep in mind I am the best poker player in the world, I'll let us know if they are bluffing.

What is sad is that they are supposedly scrambling to setup 10k nodes to prevent this hardfork when all they will succeed if they aren't bluffing is an alt with 10k nodes and less than 1-2% hashing power. Hopefully they have some developers on hand to quickly change the difficulty retarget limit so they have a usable , albeit very insecure alt.

It won't seem relevant immediately I suppose, but the miners are already in a Nash Equilibrium (also I used to be an (underground) miner).

I used to run a full Bitcoin node all the time. Now I run one for the first half of the month, and continue to run it until I'm close to my monthly download cap. This month I ran out of cap early so I haven't been running it for a week or so. This morning I needed to make a Bitcoin payment, so I ran the client so it could sync the blockchain before I made the payment. It took 10 minutes to find a peer to connect to.

We are currently short of full nodes to connect to. This is a real problem that is currently happening.

We currently aren't short of space in blocks. Even if we hit the blocksize limit it isn't clear that it would be a problem. Lots of the transactions currently getting into blocks are tiny dust transactions from "faucets" worth fractions of a cent. Is that the kind of traffic we want to encourage?

If we increase the block size limit it will make the actual problem we are currently having worse since even less people will be inclined to donate their available bandwidth to supporting the Bitcoin network for free. And it's not clear that it will make anything better.

In fact, it is false to think that Gavin or anybody else has any authority to hard fork Bitcoin.  There is no such authority; Bitcoin was designed as a system where authority counts for nothing.  The only thing that counts is mining power.

All Gavin can do -- in fact, all that anyone can do unless they are a miner -- is put the code for a hard fork into a client.  

Nobody forces a miner to run that version of the code.  Miners have been tweaking code and compiling their own clients forever.  

The fact is that the only people who get a vote in whether or not a hard fork actually happens are the miners.  And their vote is by hashing power.  

Forget Gavin or anybody else.  What it comes down to is whether the miners choose to put that version number into the header of the blocks they mine, or not.  If they don't, there is no fork.  If they decide they want a different fork and hire some random coder we've never heard of to write it, then if they make a 95% decision, they can deploy that fork without consulting us or even warning us.  

This fork issue is the decision of the miners.  Nobody else, anywhere.

It is not an assumption.  It is a prerequisite.  When the code for a hard fork is deployed, no change to the protocol actually happens until 95% or more of the hashing power (over the most recent thousand blocks) asserts via the protocol-version field in the header that they are ready and willing to convert to the new protocol.

Consequently, 'Gavincoin' as you're calling it WILL NEVER EXIST unless 95% of miners are ready and willing to abandon 'MPcoin'.  

And therefore, at the instant a split happens, 'MPcoin'  blocks will start taking at least 20 times as long and the MPcoin ability to process transactions  will drop to at most 5% of its previous level.  MPcoin could adjust its rates back to one block per 10 minutes, eventually - but making 2016 blocks at that rate will take ten months, and the adjustment after that will take another two and a half, so MPCoin won't be getting back to ten-minute blocks for at least a year after the split.   

Again, this is not an assumption, this is a prerequisite.  If the conditions are not such that this will happen, then the split won't happen in the first place.

Cryddit

False. You assume that limited transactions equals limited utility. You fail to recognize that unlimited transactions equals no security. How many full nodes to you maintain? Do you know how long it takes to sync with the network? So it is the exact opposite of what you say; unlimited transactions means less security which means less utility and less value. So yes. STFU. You have no idea what you are talking about.

Pretty sure i do. Ive been here a while and ive been studying bitcoin for a while. Keeping the block size at 1 mb would greatly limit the number of transactions that could be processed and so greatly limit the utility of bitcoin. A bitcoin with less utility is worth less than a bitcoin with more utility.

We must press on.  

Going back to the relation between the block chain problem and the pyramids, and with respect to Bohm:

We might understand such a point about the economics of pyramids might be very exciting for someone like Hancock.  On the one hand we have someone searching for a great lost civilization, and on the other we have countless videos (we call conspiracies and numerology) showing how all these structures in the world seem to be aligned together.  Asking why this happened seems to be the exact wrong question, from the wrong view.

And then something interesting arises in regards to the word "deluge".

TWON teaches us the great civilizations must arise near significant waterways, as water (in specific forms and functions) must necessarily be one of the four color factors to a great nation.  And we have seen many such civilizations and their mastery of water, but we have not yet understood the foundations of their monetary policies and specifically what ends them.

We still have not argued about the fact that without the great pyramids we would certainly be in the stone age right now, but we had clearly lost our knowledge about the Egyptian peoples, and it took thousands of years for us to finally start to figure out our history in this direction.  

I think then over such a long period of time (especially millenia, 10k years, 100k years) "deluge" can just as easily refer to the economic downfall of a society, and especially and still in direct relation to floods, since the mastery of water certainly requires a great consensus (or great civilization).

We have been looking for a great catastrophe, that allows us to understand our ancient and pre history, yet I think we have shown a very strong argument that the catastrophe was not so necessarily external and environmental.  But rather over time as waters rose, our most ancient civilizations (and the pyramids they obviously built), sunk out of our sight, and so out of our consciousness.

It seems then, now that we put this in the correct perspective, all of the auspicious nature of "pyramid" alignment is actually cognitive bias to what is quite simple and obvious: one could calculate exactly where this lost civilization lays in the ocean, as all today's structures point to it (for reasons we won't yet explain).

It seems we are back to no consensus, and yet price has stabilized again.

I fear you have given me the impression that you also have not ACTUALLY read TWON.

Sure. It's simply a case of wishful thinking. The premise that "MPcoin blocks would be too slow" is based on the assumption that the majority of hashing power will switch to gavincoin. This assumption fails to recognize that hashing power is not funded by hope and change, nor is it funded by reddit upvotes or forum threads. Bitcoin mining is funded with money, something which none of you have. At least, not enough to out-spend MP. So that's that. You are poor. LOL. Deal with it.

P.S. I'm the "SG" referenced in the linked article.

There has been several posts made about MPcoin being useless because blocks would be too slow etc...
Care to comment on that? You seem fairly confident MPcoin is going to win the "war".