Topic: Bitcoin 20MB Fork - page 67. (Read 154787 times)

You bring up valid concerns, and almost relevate "ideal poker". You see I too have a "utility" plan for bitcoin, as I represent the entire ipoker world.  And  would then ask if I may use all of our billion dollar a year industry of transactions on the block chain?  I think I have learned form this conversation exactly why poker hasn't snap adopted this tech over night.  Even today rumours circulate the industry monopoly will adopt bitcoin: http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2vnrz9/confirmation_that_poker_stars_finishing_bitcoin/  but alas the links don't work and we see motivation rather for the viral hoax (perphaps today is real).

But then I might ask if you might permit us to actually use the block chain to play poker on since poker is in fact simply a probabilistic exchange of monies for chips, and I think we agree bitcoin will never support that amount of scalability.  And so I have created, out of the evolution of reason and technology, pokerz network, based on pokers "coin".  Simply contingent on bitcoin being the store of wealth so that at least some cost of security is not passed from the current status quo to the player (much like the cost of US guarding the worlds gold should not eventually fall on the citizens).

And so then I suppose from your perspective we might ask what transactions are you worried about will not be scalable if we limit bitocin to a gold like technology, and how might we use innovation to 'solve' your concerns?  << I think this is what smith refers to about enabling productive stock:

Yes, of course, I want something better than a credit card. But by limiting my free use of bitcoins you're making it worse than a credit card, because then I will need another service that acts similar to the credit card. So all the effort goes for nothing.

Bitcoin Network Cost = Data Size * Decentralization

If the supportable cost stays the same, and the data size increases, you can expect the decentralization to decrease.  Historically there have been some decreases in Data Size costs, from innovation advancements. 

We should expect to lose some decentralization with the increase in data size through adoption-oriented scalability improvements.
This is one of the reason why I would like this to be done carefully and thoughtfully.

Not everyone needs to be a node.


More convenient? Sending Bitcoin is like sending an email. That's pretty convenient, at least for me.


I disagree. Payments are all I've ever done with Bitcoin.


If I can afford to trust, but I can save that by using a trustless system, then why am I still preferring to use trust?


Weaken it? How does having lots of transactions weaken Bitcoin?

You make the exact point, your credit card is such a store of value or wealth but an arbitrary system that takes a ton of value from you. The gigantic interest rates and fees are the product of not having a monetary unit that does not fluctuate in relation to the global economy.  Not having a bedrock has evolved this "credit card" system that robs all of us of value.

So you outline the exact argument, that we NEED a bedrock for society at least or more importantly than high volume universal transactions.  We can listen to Adam Smith's inquiry into the nature and causes of the Wealth of Nations:

It seems to me there is a clear issue of not being able to have our cake and eat it too.  Or rather the choice (only), between a high transaction currency or a solid monetary standard.
Are we together standing on the Great Pyramid?

Again, what makes you think so?

With my credit card I can buy a coffee or a TV and I expect it to work the same. Why would it be different with Bitcoin?

Why is keeping track of my daily expenses not needed? How will they be validated otherwise?

What makes you think Bitcoin isn't transacted so often (or that it shouldn't be)?

That's why the Sidechains will be perfect for you.


What's the problem with this fix? The raise is too big? Or raising the block limit is wrong?


What's more precious/valuable? The actual bandwidth used on internet or what's actually going on on internet? The bandwidth is useful indeed because without it the internet would not be possible, but how is that bandwidth used is what brings more value overall.

What attitude to you imagine that I have?
Again with the rhetoric that if we disagree than I must not have "reading comprehension" problem because of course you are right?  
When discussing these things I love to learn how I am wrong, that means I have learned something.  Are you also open to learning or are you beyond the potential for learning because you know everything already?


If you think that says anything more than "the software works" then you are right, we are done discussing.
When you come to realize "the software" =/= "the protocol" we can start again.

There yet?  OK read on...

"Software engineering" is very different from "protocol engineering".  You can be great at one and horrible at the other.  I love Gavin, I respect him enough to tell him when I disagree with him and have done so, and in slightly more detail privately.  His testing is a good thing and I am happy for it, it had to be done.

What it does not do is get us any closer to a good solution to HOW to raise the block size so that we don't ever have to worry about changing this again.  That would take protocol engineering.  The testing does show that the software may work with bigger blocks for a while in a certain constrained environment, which is great news.

When you also add "security" and "economics game theory" there are other elements as well.  It is a different thing to build a boat that floats in a private bay, and one that can go through enemy waters that may have submarines in them.

lol..  have it your way: "I" am not close to mass adopting, lol.  Is that better?

Not going to talk here about my mining activities, thanks anyway.  It is not germane.  For purpose of discussion you may assume that I mined a lot for a very long time but never made or lost any money on it.

Do you disagree with this formula though?  We can discuss it and what it means if you like.


Well... sort of...
Before the 1MB limit (added Summer 2010) it was a 32MB limit...  Satoshi wrote about why it was added and a bit about the conditions and method under which it could be changed.  It was not initially intended to be a permanent thing.  I can find some quotes if you need them..

But to answer your question, why should you agree that it is the way it should be instead of any other way...  I am not asking you to agree with anything, I am asking you to understand that the lack of agreement means that there is not a consensus on the matter.  

We don't have a "best proposal" yet for how to fix it, we don't even have a "this is really good" proposal.  We have a "this is the simplest that could possibly work" proposal.

I would like to work toward a "best proposal".  At a minimum I would like a proposal that will work forever and not take the risk of kicking so many folks off the bitcoin network.  You on the other hand are on the side of: "we don't need to think about this anymore, lets DO SOMETHING before its too late, quick everyone PANIC".


Bitcoin is ALL about the limits it has, get rid of those limits and you no longer have Bitcoin.
No limit to the number of coins, no limit to double spending, no limit to who can spend a particular coin?  Those are the fiat system.  Bitcoin is ALL about limits, and preventing bad things from happening to the protocol.

So by disagreeing, you agree that there is no consensus.

No I am not my screenname.  Nor am I my text posts.  Its just if we are going to make the decision of whether or not bitcoin is to be only either gold or a highly transactable currency (or any other alternative), then we MUST consult 20 years of lectures on the matter.  And then it is not that I am quoting some form of "deja vu" experience but rather that one man saw clearly the arising of this very event and discussion/decision and so by using math, foresight, and insight, could spend much of that time preparing strategies and explanations (to be relevated somewhat naturally).

And so I am not the leader, or the speaker, or necessarily the facilitator, but simply a side-speaker that happens to carry a few relevant points that might inter mingle into dialogue:



Seemingly we aren't totally in the dark here, and nor should we be:

did you just talk about yourself at the third person?

Relevate:Bohm
Trainscarswreck doesn't have much of a preference. But we might understand the problem better in its totality (if there was one it would be for bitcoin as a gold standard rather than a super high volume transaction currency).  And certainly we need someone AT LEAST familiar with the lecture series about how a new currency technology is going to rock us off the gold/usd (de facto standard).

The dialogue though, seems important.

This shows that you also don't understand what net neutrality actually is about.

Instead of replying to my last post you are mumbling something about "uncontrolled exponentially bigger blocks" while Gavin's post is all about a controlled growth of the blocks. You lack reading comprehension or you are just bad intended with this small change of subject. No need to continue a discussion with your attitude.

Forget about Nash. traincarswreck wants bitcoin to be a currency! Nothing else. Why? Limited vision. Easy game!

It may be a philosophical issue.  If this is one of those NetNeutrality idiots that want to prevent me from investing in faster internet connection for myself because "fairness".

When you add these view points together you get the pernicious move from Bitcoin -> totalitarian coin.

Uncontrolled exponentially bigger blocks + government constrained network speeds and new regulatory authority over all internet uses (where you are NOT allowed to put your bitcoin node in a fast lane because it wouldn't be "fair" to the Farmville players). 

I would like to relevate this question then, to the community: Why was it "...not irrelevant that George II, the king then, was an early Hanoverian and also ruled territory in Germany"?

(I have not had time yet to trace all of the royal lineages in respect to things such as gold)

There is nobody here who could argue vs. such a statement. Furthermore its essentially tautological.

Of course right?

According to whom?

Why would client B do that?  The point of the change is increasing the maximum tx per hour, and rejecting blocks for being small would do nothing toward accomplishing that goal.  Further, there's code (in bitcoin main.cpp), specifically to prevent this from happening.  It ensures that there is no rejection of blocks for using old protocol, until 95%+ of the hashing power (as seen from protocol-version headers in the block chain's last thousand blocks) is ready to go on the new protocol.  


Diverge?  No, they won't.  Nobody will ever have a spendable version-A coin after the fork.  You have to remember the 95% rule about the way hard forks actually get rolled out.  No block that violates the A-version protocol (ie, no >1Mb block) will be produced by a B-client miner, until it reads in the protocol version headers of the last thousand blocks that 95% of them have been produced by miners that are ready to understand and mine new blocks in the B-version protocol.    Until that time, Client-B's will continue to read, accept, and extend version-A blocks.  

So there IS no block that an A-version client will reject, until 95% plus of the mining power is mining the B-version protocol.  There can be no transaction that an A-version client would reject, until 100 blocks later when the coinbase from the first version-B block matures.  

To the extent that chain-A continues at all after that point, it has to do so with less than 5% of the hashing power.  That means it has no credibility, so I expect that it will cease to exist entirely rather than diverging.  But if it doesn't cease to exist entirely, it still won't be moving fast enough for there to be "taint" and "divergence."

Assume for amusement that, of that last five percent that hung on with client-A until the 95% majority actually pulled the trigger, one in ten continue to hang on to the old chain.  This won't happen because the old chain will be horribly crippled at that point, but assume that it does.  What have these people got to look forward to?  

With one half of one percent of the hashing power, you get one <1Mb block every 33 hours.  That means your maximum transaction rate is under one per minute, so if anybody is actually trying to make transactions, odds are most of them never get into a version-A block.  They're all acceptable transactions in the version-B chain though, so they get accepted and processed there immediately.  If someone mining the version-A protocol does pick them up,  the confirmation time until that block is in a chain six deep is about a week and a half.  And your chain-A coinbase outputs, which you're counting on to "taint" transactions?  Good luck with that, it'll take four and a half months for them to get the 100 blocks deep that will make them spendable.  

You really think anybody's going to hang around a block chain that crippled, for four and a half months, while all their transactions are getting accepted, processed, and confirmed by the new chain?  While they can't even MAKE a transaction that won't be legitimate w/r/t the new chain?   Hint:  They won't.  Nobody will ever have a spendable chain-A coinbase coin after the hardfork.   Nobody will ever be able to make a transaction that is acceptable to chain A but not to chain B.  

Oh, but, you say, a difficulty adjustment might make it better?  Difficulty adjustments happen every 2016 blocks in Bitcoin - meaning, if chain-A somehow keeps half of one percent of the hashing power, which it won't, about once in seven and a half years.  Nobody's going to stick it out.
  

To start with, B will never deploy with 2% of hashing power.  It will deploy with AT LEAST 95% of the hashing power.  If less than 95% of the miners are mining blocks and putting protocol-version B into the block headers, the fork never happens.    No block not acceptable to protocol version A will ever be produced until the mining client-B sees that 95% of the last thousand blocks are from miners ready to go with protocol version B.    

And that leaves people mining protocol version A With <5% of the hashing power AND <1MB blocks.  Protocol version A will be unable to handle any transaction load at all.