Topic: Bitcoin 20MB Fork - page 61. (Read 154787 times)

I must relevate a certain point about this, before I introduce us to a very important "person".

I suspect also that "Satoshi" foresaw this. And in fact contacted ted Nelson (and consulted him) to let him know somehow and in some form his dream will in fact become a reality.  I suspect then that his video of who he thinks Satoshi is, is a very humbled and heartfelt T. Nelson.   We must keep in mind I am the world best poker player (although I truly wish I didn't feel I had to proclaim it).

And we must see this all in relation to this memo from Dr. Nash, we are clearly building this:

I believe I can make this relevant to some degree.  In relation to the problem we face today, and the understanding of why Satoshi cannot be here to discuss this (or Szabo or Nash or bitcoin elite (royalty), and we should understand that Newton was able to do such a peg because of his relation to the royalty of the time.  It is true that across history one of the many functions of royalty was to be the finalizer of "consensus".  It is interesting, and again not insignificant, to point out that Khufu apparently died upon the completion of the pyramids.

That money and power and consensus are not unrelated with state and royalty and the amount of centralized authority we need in order to finalize a consensus. In order to solve this problem it MUST be put in its proper context:

I should not be the only one that sees the relation of these points.

No.  Nash extrapolated from the history of money, by learning about it, deeply and learning everything around it.  That is how he did all of this.  If we do not follow his works and his path, I am afraid we will forever be out of context.  I do not understand how we cannot put this goether:


The VERY first line itself is INCREDIBLY significant and incredibly dense.  What is money, what is a commodity, what is "special" about it, and what is its long and interesting history?

Obviously we need to consult Adam Smith's TWON, but ALSO Nick Szabo's essay shelling out.
Are you to tell me that he is talking about a different revolution?  A different evolution that is about leaving the Keynesian system but not for bitcoin that has a decentralized finite monetary policy?  You think he meant some other form of money as an alternate savings?  Perhaps like moon rocks? Do you think edison created bitcoin http://topinfopost.com/2014/03/20/bitcoin-the-digital-currency-invented-by-thomas-edison?

This paragraph is talking about this thread:
How do we not see this?

Szabo read Nash, and Krawisz read Szabo.

I can read Krawisz and then avoid reinventing all the wheels so that I have time to focus on the few wheels I do want to reinvent.

No, you haven't spent a fair time.  Nash is nearly 90, and has been lecturing on the topic of "Ideal Money" for 20 years.  He had his revelation in nearly 1960 on what would become "ideal money".  I do not know what the issue with text internet dialogue in which what I convey doesn't get across.  

You have ignored an IMMENSE amount of literature on the topic.  I think you and others are reading my words like "Hey some random guy gave some random talks about what good money could be".  I need you to read it like this "The world's most knowleadgeable man on money has been explaining for 20 years how bitcoin is going to revolutionize economics".

He goes into incredible depth, and I think such a thing should not be ignored.  You must understand what it looks like from my perspective-this is silly.

(Edit: btw thx for the articles I will read them as we go!)

I've spent a fair amount of time studying the nature of money.

From 2008 until 2012, I spent most of my time on a different forum where the topics under discussion were macroeconomics, money, and the operation of the financial system. During my time there I came very close to independently deriving the concept of money as delayed reciprocal altruism.

As far as "ideal money" goes, Krawisz nailed it.

The only thing I'd add to what he wrote is that where the crypto-goldbugs think they have an example of something being a store of value without being a medium of exchange, what they are actually observing is the effects of subsidies on central banks.

I'm afraid we again we must press on:

Here is how I see this and perhaps someone can truly put a formula to it.  We are looking for a consensus on the most ideal block size.  Consensus gets more difficult over time.  The ideal block size gets more accurate over time (with market data).  This suggests a point in which we will have the most data at the very last moment in which a consensus could be reached.

And so I suspect this is the very crux or paradox of mankind that is the most significant problem we face.  And it seems to me then that we are looking at one of two options: Either no consensus and/or leave the block size the same, or change the block size to 20mb and leave it forever.

I suspect these are the only two plausible possibilities, and if we discuss this a little further I am quite convinced we can use game theory to reason the obvious outcome that will happen.  And I suspect, that our only hope for a consensus on NOT 1 mb, is to sell the story to the masses that we are matching block size to the ancient Egyptian royal cubit.  They need a reason and it needs to be tied to something tangible that creates a logical story of our existence and history.

If that is laughable, or irrelevant to you...then I make the conjecture that there will be no changing the current size (which COULD for some reasons be a favorable outcome of this "game").

What has happened here is the birth and story of bitcoin at the very beginning was presented as a myth.  There are multiple layers to the true un-hidden history of how bitcoin came about. We are starting to be able to decode this story especially in relation to the problem we face today.

What I see is a totally different story and I see that this problem was completely foreseeable mathematically by “Satoshi” or anyone involved in the creation of bitcoin.  This is something that would be hard to swallow, but in relation to the realization that you need the mining pools to stabilize, then you need the exchanges to stabilize, then you need price to stabilize (not vs usd etc, but simply for the price to somewhat reflect its true market value).

It was very likely NOT a mistake that bitcoin was released with an infinite size block in the beginning, and then as it become a little popular a finite size was put in place to help it growth.  This necessitates the OBVIOUS question of what is the ideal block size, how should it be set, and WHEN should it be set.

The problems, if not viewed from the myth of Satoshi, but rather the obvious true history, are easy to see.  If you wait too long you will not be able to guarantee a consensus.  If the blocks are too big you risk centralization.  If the blocks are too big bitcoin becomes for the elite (aka centralization).  So with a little data, some experiments, and some foresight, this problem of block size could have been foreseen and formulated years and years ago.

And with respect to Ideal Money (and TWON), and something you all must then trust me on (or read for yourself), our decision is whether bitcoin should be a money or a gold.  A high transaction currency or a very finite “property” in which we can peg all our new currency inventions too (as well as all other currencies if we wish).

We are trying to approach the problem, formulaically by bridging computer science with the math and economics of the situation.  But that is not the full scope of the problem.  We MUST consider, what is “Ideal Money”, what is the relation of the block chain to the pyramids and gold, and for this we must then consider what are the nature and the causes of the wealth of nations.

Because, what we are learning is that consensus especially on controversial topics, comes only from observable truth.  It will never come from religious belief, it will only be observable fact, and without Ideal Money and in relation to TWON, we are all functioning off religion and myth.

We need to relevate science and fact.

Now I loosely read your papers, which I think is fair that we don't all always fully read each others posts.  But I will go back and read more carefully over the days if they are still relevant. I do not want to immediately seem like I am arguing but I do have some relevant (counter) points to make. Because again I must point out that you also do not seem familiar with the 20 years of lectures on the topic of "what is ideal money", and so I am not so sure that you can be said to be speaking in the context of that subject.

In constructing what is to be our most ideal money, we should certainly want to be familiar with the subject of it, and especially in relation to that which are the nature and causes of the wealth of nations.  And these are the very points in my opinion that you have missed in your essays.

Do I SERIOUSLY have to fight to be heard, when I can simply point out, you have not even consulted the lectures entitled "ideal money"?

I am going to make a few posts I hope we don't get annoyed.  I hope we understand something obvious.  Satoshi will not do this, Szabo will not do this, nobody in the bitcoin elite will do this.  Because it will break bitcoin.  They have clearly left the problem to the masses, because ONLY the masses can create consensus, and it MUST be this consensus.  Without consensus there is nothing, there never was anything without it.  Money is only a representation of this type of cooperation. Kind of a like a byproduct of it (but also a facilitator).

So having this conversation with NOT the elites of the community is the very most relevant point we can observe.

I was talking about payment channels between nodes so they can negotiate peering agreements, not for replacing regular user transactions.

This was the writing that brought me here and relevated me: https://thewealthofchips.wordpress.com/2014/12/01/securing-decentralization-through-nash-equilibria/

There is actually some easy reasoning to be done that is helpful, but only if we understand the book "An Inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations".  It is quite easy to see that a Nash Equilibrium MUST happen in order for success and wealth to arise in the form of a "Nation". And we can start to think about the exact causes and also understand then what "events" might bring down a nation.  Nick Szabo showed how money can arise in a chain of islands, but this is only a very specific application of Nash Equilibrium and TWON, we could also apply this (and generalize it) to land.

The four color map problem becomes significant because it shows the fundamental conditions (although this won't be immediately obvious to you).  If for example there are for pillars to the Nash Eq that arises a wealthy nation, then two sub states with the same "contribution", will NOT be a Nash equilibrium.  There is more to explain there, but I am sure of this.  I have a natural gift for solutions, and always left with an inability to explain.

You and many others I am sure will disagree that without the pyramids we would still be in the stone age, and we need to argue about this fact because I am sure we are not understanding the obvious truth to this.  And everyone thinks that the pyramid "step-scheme" is not relatable to the block chain but this is because they have not studied TWON in relation to Ideal Money and Nick Szabo.  

We are thinking bitcoins are finite and the block chain is infinite because we fail to understand the relation between the pyramids as a finite consensus mechanism and gold as the same (which eventually become coins).  We need to come to a realization on the truth of all this ASAP.

If satoshi came online and said

"Lets fork."

Everyone would agree.

Close.  Rather what is happening is the material and "points" that I present are so dense that even the cliffs of the cliffs of the cliffs (and so on), is reading to you like gibberish and religion.  The vantage point I am viewing this problem from has rendered it completely different than the one you and others are trying to solve.  And my vantage point is in fact the correct one.  You see, you are not familiar with the lecture/subject "Ideal Money".  Furthermore, it seems by your tone, that you also have not read TWON.  More importantly and what is observable is you do not understand their significance and especially in relation to the decision we face.

What I am bringing to this dialogue, is in fact LASER relevant (in the accuracy sense), and what you are doing is being unkowledageable about the subjects, and judging me essentially a heretic.  I will break up some of my posts so they are more readable and seem more relevant but the facts are so far from the "story" of bitcoin we were presented its difficult to make the jump to what is truth.

Maybe if the limit was higher.  Payment channels still require at least one transaction per payment channel set.  How often are you willing to reset payment channels?  Once per week, once per month, once per year? The longer the period the larger the initial escrowed amount.  How many payment channels if the average user going to have. Say the average user accepts escrowing 6 months worth of future payments and has 3 payment channels payees each.  BTW I consider this unrealistically low and of this was the upper limit most users would trade principles for convinience and user centralized services.  Still lets look at it as an upper bound. That still requires 6 on block transactions per user per year.  2 tps @ 6 txn per user =  10.5  million users.  

Do you really think Bitcoin will be a global revolution with an upper limit @ 10 million users?


Payment channels are a great concept but even they are hamstrung but a ridiculously low limit.  We wouldn't even be having this discussion if the limit was anywhere near realistic but it simply isn't. A 1MB cap is simply a joke.  It just guarantees that either Bitcoin dies on the vine or it is replaced by something superior. Payment channels, sidechains, and cross chain atomic transactions are transaction multipliers.  They move us from one economic transaction per block transaction to more than one economic transaction per block transaction and that is a great thing.  If natively a blockchain can support n users it can support xn users where x>1 using payment channels.  In essence they make the primary block space more efficient but efficiency only takes us so far.  You can't get any kind of scalability out of 1MB permanent limit.  It either remains perpetually a nerd toy or it is killed off by something which can scale.

For one thing, if he has an incentive to lie it would be in the opposite direction. Favourable scaling characteristics for the main chain weakens the scalability argument for sidechains.

Also, it makes intuitive sense.

Suppose you're a node with 8 peers. Each of your peers has 8 peers, until one of them adds two more.

To what extent has the fact that one of your peers added more peers of their own increased your costs?

I'm not sure what you mean by "turn".

Check my post history - I've been in favor of scaling Bitcoin to high transaction rates since at least 2012.

And why on earth would you do that? What (or who) got you to turn? I'm surprised to see this coming from someone on the lord list.

I'm liking JR's paper. Micropayment channels is the most constructive approach to permanently dealing with the block size limit, since defenders of the limit are mostly concerned about the data overhead on full nodes. Existing relay (non-mining) full nodes are providing free services to support the network, where holding BTC and hoping for a capital gain, is the only compensation.


What's the best approach? An add-on to facilitate 2-way payment flows for all nodes types (SPV users, miners and non-miners) ? Does this call for a lighthouse project?

This equation is inherently misleading.

There are at least three ways to talk about scaling Bitcoin: scaling the number of nodes, scaling the number of transactions, scaling the number of users. Each one needs to be considered separately, or at least independently acknowledged.

That equation deals with the number of nodes and the number of transactions.

"Decentralization" isn't a well-defined term, but here it's something proportional to the number of nodes.

That sounds scary, but it really isn't because no single entity is responsible for paying the entire network's cost by themselves.

What happens to that equation when you consider the per-node network cost?


Data size is proportional to the transaction rate, therefore the cost of operating the node is proportional to the transaction rate. According to gmaxwell, the quadratic component to scaling the number of nodes can be made small enough to ignore with good network design, so I'll take him at his word.

Clearly the only threat to decentralization is the lack of price discovery for transaction relaying. If users paid for this service, then nodes would have revenue proportional to the transaction rate, therefore their revenue would increase at the same rate as their costs. Problem solved.

Fix the lack of price discovery in the P2P network, and the network will do an embarrassingly good job of solving its own scaling problems without tending toward centralization.

As hinted above, that assumption has been incorrect the entire time. I'll prove that more thoroughly shortly.

In the interest of full disclosure, my thoughts on an ideal solution to the issue of block size have been similar to the below proposal for several years now.  I'm still not convinced it isn't the best solution.  Though I'm not quite sure the economics all work out exactly.  It requires a bit more thought.


Source: http://bitcoinstats.com/irc/bitcoin-dev/logs/2015/01/22

Since this conversation, I have decided that the suggestion of 5mb main block size is not sufficient, that it should be at least 128mb instead.

Regardless, the reason for this arrangement is very simple.  It has been clear for a long time that Bitcoin will never be capable of scaling to accommodate all global transactions while simultaneously remaining substantially decentralized and accessible to the average user.  This proposal is not perfect.  But it is the simplest arrangement capable of accomplishing both goals.