Topic: Bitcoin 20MB Fork - page 76. (Read 154787 times)

i think the 1MB chain is doomed
il be going with the foundation bitcoin core's decision as will the majority of big  exchanges etc

to stick with a minority who want to mine the MPcoin would be crazy imo

If you had say 100 coins before the fork, afterwards you will have 100 in the 1MB chain and 100 coins in the 20MB chain.
They will be separate chains but not compatible. For example, I cannot send bitcoin to the litecoin chain they are incompatible.

You have a choice to avoid being raped by staying true to the original plan. Stay away from the likes of the Cosby and MP, and join the fork that will survive and grow.

We need to stay consistent with the transactional growth that Satoshi envisioned and that we were all promised.



Rather than focusing so much on any futile efforts to prevent Bitcoins growth the detractors should be focused upon other solutions to grow the 2-7tps limit before the hardfork goes through . I would be ecstatic to have other options that can raise the tps responsibly and realistically without having to increase the block limit to 20MB.

do you mean like double spend the coins on both chains at the same time or just freedom to choose either chain ?

Yup. Meaning their fungibility will be destroyed at the time of the fork.
Which means in turn that there will be a market.
And if there's a market, it's pretty obvious that one will be dumped and one will be hoarded, and that it'll seal the fate of one of the two diverging chains.

In other words, it won't be a "vote", a "discussion", or a "negotiation", it'll pretty much be a rape.

So coins will be usable in both forks if you use the proper client right?

Hard forks are not trivial.  This is going to be a six month process.  The goal would be that when the fork occurs a super majority of users, merchants, service providers, exchanges, and miners are already proactively ready.  Despite the gnashing of teeth, doomsday claims, and threats of a bitcoin war when the fork happens it will be a wimper.  We saw the same thing with P2SH.  The reason we are talking about it now is because it is a long process and talking about it after the transactions are backing up due to insufficient capacity would put everyone behind the eight ball.

Nope.  You don't have to do anything.  If there is a fork you would need to upgrade your client if/when you decide to spend coins.  That is about it.  Seeing how Gavin and the other developers moved forward with P2SH it won't happen until there is a super majority of support.

It took only a few minutes to see some pretty large holes in the idealized model used by the paper.
It is theoretical only, and has no practical application.   It assumes a reality that is in contrast to how things are actually in operation today, so...

Block size limits are not so much about mining economics.  More about controlling threats to Bitcoin and keeping it both secure and useful.

There is room in the blocks today, and some transactions with lower than the recommended fees get queued anyway, so there is already a market for block space without hitting the max size.  Free transactions still do get processed eventually.  This is fairly optimal (and this current reality is in contrast to assumptions made in the paper, the paper is not really so great).

If you are concerned about miner economics, consider (as mentioned in the paper you cite by pointing to the [urlhttp://www.cs.cornell.edu/~ie53/publications/btcProcArXiv.pdf]selfish mining paper[/url]):
The fees are a tiny minority of the miner rewards today.  Part of increasing that percentage is having more transactions per block.

...However, the notion of selfish mining is created to an extent by very large block sizes.  Larger Blocks take a longer time to propagate and so have a similar effect (but lesser and non-insidious) to block withholding.


Add storage, search, maintenance, then multiply by the number of full nodes.

I don't thing there is much of a reward fee problem here though.


It is not accurate to the present or future operation of the Bitcoin network (as I mention above also), it is a model only, and not at all a complete one.
Like doing physics but discounting friction.  It isn't really close enough to be useful.

So what you're saying is that the burden of proof is on the people citing that paper to prove its applicability to Bitcoin, since the authors didn't do it for you.

hehe no problem i get it that all the fuss around txn fees and block size are stirring the community.

however, since you brought up litecoin, there is another paper from the same author that i also found quite interesting..

It Will Cost You Nothing to 'Kill' a Proof-of-Stake Crypto-Currency: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2393940

Maybe I am a little rough as it appears to be an undergraduate paper. I just get tired of seeing limited thinking like the "scarce resources of blocks" and ignoring the fact that this is a developing technology. Perhaps I wouldn't be as offended if the paper was titled The Economics of Litecoin.

Part 2. Comments welcome.

Which part of the paper validates whether or not the model they chose to examine is an accurate of the present or future operation of the Bitcoin network?

hmmokee...

A myopic dissertation of double-entry accounting era thinking. He's criticizing a startup company, not Bitcoin. Bitcoin is about breaking paradigms in economics. At least he admits using simple statistics, but his conclusion has been debunked. Then I noticed this paper was written a year ago when the FUD machine was on overdrive.

Good paper..

The Economics of Bitcoin Transaction Fees: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2400519

I think increasing the limit to 20MB is ok .... but will refuse to support a hardfork that includes an algo that automatically increases the limit every 1.4 years... It is one thing to test up to 200MB and another thing to assume that is the future we want when we could easily have other solutions along the way.

So at the end what are the real problems with the hard-fork ?

- Bandwidth
- Download/upload (of all the users)
- The reward fee for the  Pools (miners).
..
...