Topic: Bitcoin 20MB Fork - page 68. (Read 154787 times)

Fine. I will not speak for Satoshi and I will only speak for me as long as you do the same.


If you call http://gavintech.blogspot.ro/2015/01/twenty-megabytes-testing-results.html guessing then I guess we are done discussing stuff.


I will only speak for me as long as you do the same so I will ignore this "we" comment.


How much mining have you done or are you doing right now to speak about network costs?


But before this 1MB limit we had no limit. Why should I agree that this is the way it should be instead of the other way?

Here we disagree. You view Bitcoin as something that is supposed to limit. I don't. There can't be a middle way.

John Nash did though, and extensively.  And here is the thing, not only is he a real person where as Satoshi is clearly jesus, but Dr. Nash knows waaaaayyyyy more about money than Sataoshi (and possibly Szabo and Satoshi combined).  And so I should think that we should at least CONSULT his vast works on the topic of both the history and present circumstances of money, but also of money in relation to creating a globalized standard for it, that will ultimately accelerate us towards "ideality".

Here are some helpful thoughts (I hope we read them and don't just ignore Nash because he's 80+):

The last part is a joke (cause he always laughs at the end of the lecture), do we get it?

Are we ready to do this?  Seems like the world has hiccuped in relation to the USD/Gold/Bond de facto standard...seems like its time and we can get ahead of the Euro crisis announcement on monday...let's do it...let people vote with their monies!
I don't mean to pull you out of context but you also mentioned earlier that the consensus need not be 100%!

You are using rhetoric debate tricks, so I will point out a few of those.
1) Please do not speak for Satoshi.
2) Please do not speak for others.
3) I've written a lot of things in the past that you do not pay attention to also, don't pretend that I should have to read everything you have ever written to ask a few simple questions.

We agree on most things, the internet has changed, Bitcoin has changed, movie compression has changed.  All of that is orthogonal to this particular change, and as to how it ought to change.  There we disagree. 

I also think that the block size will increase, and I look forward to it.  I do think it ought to be done with care and intelligence.  I do not think we should guess about it.  I do not think new arbitrary limits should be created by adding an exponential dimension, even if they are "better" than the current ones, without also taking the time we have to do it right.  I do not think "we need to allow stuff to happen".

IF we break bitcoin for some purposes in order to fix it for other purposes, it is important to be very honest about that.   To some folks this is the "screw-TOR-lets-mass-adopt" hard fork.  We aren't anywhere close to mass adoption today, but a larger block size removes an impediment to getting there.  Is it worth making it impossible to mine over TOR?  Maybe.  Maybe not.  Some may exit.  There are less that use TOR than those that don't, so if we are majority magnets, we drop TOR.  I do not favor a rule by the majority.

It also allows for increased network cost or decreases centralization:
Bitcoin Network Cost = Data Size * Decentralization

So these are two attack threat vectors opened up by your "We just need to allow stuff to happen." mentality.

Bitcoin is what it is, not because of what it allows, but because of what it does NOT allow.

I do not favor a rule by the majority.  You value 'consensus' but I do not think you really know what that means, it does not mean the majority rules over the minority.  It means agreement.

So from "Why do *I* need *you* to start projects and services on the Bitcoin block chain?" and "Why do *you* insist on imposing upon others?" you switched to "Why do "we" *need* this?". Ok..that makes a lot of sense...

Now to answer to your issue:
Because if we have a closed network that only allows the highest bidder to use it, then it will remain a closed network. Satoshi didn't started Bitcoin to be a closed network. If *you* want a closed network based on the highest bids then yes go ahead and "The code is open source, fork it, Side Chain it, modify it however you see fit, and have fun with your project or service".

I speak for myself and from the looks of it there are a lot of people that think the same. Since this is a consensus network then all the users need to agree to the best terms that allow the network to flourish. When I say "we" I'm referring to all the network users if we want a consensus network to still be alive in 10 years.

I said it in the past, but you obviously don't pay attention to posts. Bitcoin is Internet of money. Internet flourished after there were a lot of services running on top of it. Look at the Internet 20 years ago and look at the Internet today. What has changed? Well at first people didn't know what to do with the Internet, but today they have figured it out and there are TONS of services/projects running on top of it (Facebook, Google, Websites, E-mail etc) and people that do all kinds of stuff (porn, chat, various types of websites, darkmarkets etc). You and I can do whatever the hell we want on Internet and nobody is making you auction your space on the Internet. Why shouldn't be the same with Bitcoin?

20 years ago downloading the equivalent of a HD movie in a couple of minutes was just a fantasy, but look where we are today! I think that the same can be done with Bitcoin. What today seems an impossible technological challenge, maybe tomorrow will be reality.

Sure.  Here you go.    ^^

"We just need to allow stuff to happen."

Why do "we" *need* this?  
Why do *you* think you speak for others?  
What is this "stuff" you are interested in inflicting on people, and why do we "need" to allow it?

That's an interesting phrase and concept, we will see in the next 4-5 years if it will stay "free, decentralized & neutral" or not (I certainly hope so).

Do you lack reading reading comprehension? I have highlighted one important part from my quote. Let me repeat it because you obviously didn't see it: Bitcoin should be neutral just as the Internet and it should be available for everyone, not just to the highest bidders

I never stated that I want to start projects and that you need me. I said that there are a lot of people that would like to start various services and projects. Please highlight the part where I said that I want to start anything.

Why do *I* need *you* to start projects and services on the Bitcoin block chain?
The code is open source, fork it, Side Chain it, modify it however you see fit, and have fun with your project or service.

Why do *you* insist on imposing upon others?

So you wanted to start a project, but you cancelled it because the network couldn't handle the high number of transactions? Imagine that there are a lot of people that would want to start various projects or more important various services, but can't because the network doesn't allow them a high transaction number. That's why we need 20MB blocks. Internet got popular and useful for everyone when we were able to access different services on it. It will be the same with Bitcoin. We just need to allow stuff to happen!

Why do you compare Bitcoin with gold? What's the logic behind that? Did Satoshi mentioned anything about Bitcoin and gold? I'm not aware of that reference. That's again your view about Bitcoin which is a personal and distorted view of Bitcoin. Bitcoin should be neutral just as the Internet and it should be available for everyone, not just to the highest bidders because you or anyone else wants it that way!

Yes sidechains will help, but we don't know how much space in a block will the Sidechain need so until we know that it's useless to make assumptions about them.

reality

Why?

Apparently these folks are thinking that we have a few years to worry about this still...

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

We aren't yet at half the limit on average, so doubling by 2017, we still won't be there.

So, how about that BIP to get a block size metric into the block chain, where it will always be able to tell us what a good block size will be?  It would be nice to not have to talk about this again.

i am sure not every one agrees with you either ^^

So as I said. You are sure of some stuff and you think that there will be no technical solutions for all the above. Reality is different.

As for the "a huge network flow is a very big risk for the network"...Well I'm speechless! What are your expectations from the Bitcoin network other than a huge network flow? You are one of those people that only see Bitcoin as a currency and are only interested in the exchange rate?

Not so special as you imagine.
All measuring is born of consensus.

When that fails, space shuttles fall out of the sky because a consensus between English units and Metric units was not made.

--
We are contemplating moving from a static limit to a dynamic one.  This should be done thoughtfully rather than arbitrarily.
We aren't hitting the 1MB limit now, so a 2MB limit would probably be just fine and less risk.  The problem there is that this debate happens whenever things like this are discussed....
So, a dynamic limit is proposed, to end the repeating discussions...  EXCEPT IT DOESN'T DO THAT BECAUSE IT IS JUST AS MUCH AN ARBITRARY GUESS ABOUT THE FUTURE. 

If there were a way to to end the discussions, and have a limit that adjusts so that it is never too big or too small we would be done here.

This problem has been struggled with since version 0.3 or so.

So you are sure that there will be no technical trick to solve this issue. You are 100% sure about this. Of course you also know the lottery numbers and what the exchange rate will be in a couple of years.

People want to have it their way. For them Bitcoin is only a currency and nothing else which is wrong wrong wrong!

Yes of course, but bitcoin is not only a currency. It is an alternative "way" for send a large quantity of money and pay lower fee, and after a currency (like € , $ , etc....) .

Do you know anything else besides "ideal money" and "poker"?

What if "Client B" were to reject any block that was 1MB or below, and only created blocks larger than 1MB (starting with some future block number).  Then regardless of "Client A"'s hashing power, those blocks will not be valid as far as Client B is concerned.

Sure the chains will quickly diverge (as there will be UTXOs with taint from new post-fork coins in Client A that will be rejected on Client B, and coins tainted in Client B are rejected by Client A).  If Client B only gets a really small amount of hashing capacity it won't be seen as being secure enough to persuade users to hop over to Client B.  But with a 20MB max blocksize, just 2% of the hashing capacity is still enough to absorb existing daily Bitcoin transaction load.  So does having just 2% mean this Client B dies, ... or does it just mean that we have an altcoin that was launched with initial distribution going to every person (or wallet) holding Bitcoin at the point the fork started?