Topic: Bitcoin Core Roadmap visualized (Read 5717 times)

It seems that we're still on track with Segwit for April. Consensus has been reached in China, for now.

It is supposed to be one, yes. As you've seen recently there are paid shills advocating against LN (e.g. Thread about 21 inc "doing LN the right way").

I'm sure that they have. I've already told you and explained to you that adoption on a global scale is not possible via the block size limit. Not possible without sacrificing decentralization and this is something that the Core developers are trying to avoid.

So if you want to discuss the hash functions you have to include economics? No. You can't have a 'low volume - high cost network'. If there is inadequate volume then the cost can't even go up. I'm certain that the 'fee market' would be fine for some time. Initially what would happen is somewhere along these lines:
Fees are low (blocks are full) -> groups of people keep increasing fees to gain priority -> cost becomes higher -> certain people temporarily don't transact -> fees become lower (as blocks aren't full).
I'm not saying that I prefer people temporarily not transacting, but I'm saying that we should be reasonable and not hyperbolic when it comes to this.

No. This is not censorship, it even says so on the top of the thread:"This is a self-moderated topic. If you do not want to be moderated by the person who started this topic, create a new topic.".

I would hope that the Bitcoin Core roadmap would have taken account of the economics of what they are doing. Since they have decided to fundamentally change the economic policy of Bitcoin with this roadmap.

Almost everything in Bitcoin relates back to economics. I find it hard to imagine how you think that economics is off topic for any Bitcoin discussion. Considering that Bitcoin is a cryptocurrency. This question for Bitcoins future whether we have a "low volume high cost" network or a "high volume low cost" network are fundamental and very much do relate to this roadmap.

Thank you for not deleting any of the of the posts I have made on this thread but I can not comment on this thread any longer. I think that the idea that economic discussion will be censored unreasonable. Even the threat of censorship is stifling.

That is how Bitcoin works, the miners are incentivized to do whatever is best for the network, which is what returns value back to the miners, the miners also have a lasting stake in Bitcoin which aligns their incentivizes with those of the economic majority. It is exactly because of this selfish self interest that mining works, much like capitalism, peoples greed bringing about a greater good. I honestly believe if this was not the case Bitcoin would be fundamentally flawed.

I think it leaves out some important aspects myself, but Lauda certainly did do a good job making that infographic, does look nice, explains the things that it does explain well.

•Lightning Network and •Payment Channels each has its own bullet point. Why? Isn't LN a payment channel system?

Wladimir is just the release maintainer, meaning that he tags the releases, signs the final binaries, and publishes them. He doesn't have the final say even though he is primarily the person who merges PRs. Any of the other developers with commit access can override each other.

Agreed (to disagree)

But, I think that many (but not all of them) miners are in it for the money. So while yes the pool is kind of a representative democracy, many miners probably don't care as long as the money keeps coming in. In that case then, the pool operators can do whatever they want and as long as the miners are paid, they don't care.

Agreed, being well informed does help, and I think this thread with its infographic is a good job for that as it can actually explain what the Core plan is in layman terms to better educate the masses.

I believe it is Wladimir who has the final say as the lead developer for Core, and the seven developers with commit access each have veto power over each other as well. Thank you for the correction.

Maybe we should agree to disagree on this point, I have argued extensively that this is not the case. I have argued that the pools are like a form of representative democracy for the miners. The pools serve the miners, it is the miners that have all of the power in this relationship, since they control the hashpower. I think that Bitcoin even depends on this presumption, this is part of the game theory behind mining. If what you where saying where true it would mean that Bitcoin is fundementally broken today, I do not think this is the case. I suppose you think that Bitcoin is broken and that Core has to fix it.

I have the freedom of choice by choosing which pool to mine with. If there are no pools that exist that support my point of view a new pool can be created and if there are enough people that think this way it will be viable. Even the situation today is prove that is the case. We have pools supporting both sides of the blocksize debate presently, some pools even giving people choice within the pool itself.

Exactly, this is what I have been saying. This depends on the will of the participants of the network as well. If people do not think they have a choice then surely they would not make that step. People being well informed makes a big difference.

There are actually seven developers with commit access. Who do you claim has the final say, and how so?

There are 11 major mining pools. The pool operators have the final say on what the pool mines. Even though you are a miner, you have no say in what goes into the block. You could of course change pools if you don't like what the pool is doing, but if no other pool does what you want, then solo mining or starting your own pool isn't going to make much of a difference in anything. So when it comes to mining, only the pool operators of the 11 major pools actually matter, and they make mining centralized.

The developers are not supplying anything except code. Like you said, the miners determine the supply of block space, and the miners can choose whether they want to use one implementation or another, the core developers aren't forcing anyone to do anything.

You can't know this. If you are talking about people who are running a rig or two at home, then forget about it. This is a thing of the past (unfortunately).

There are five mining pools in which ~80-90% of the hashrate is concentrated.

They've decided to add more space via Segwit.

The thread is about any of the points found on the info-graphic. It is not about the 'free markets', 'future economics' nor any kind of economics. Even if any of this is related, I don't want it in my thread (nor is it suitable for this sub-forum).

Not really. Posts by people who are on my ignore list get deleted automatically regardless of the contents. Otherwise I try not to delete many others. If you keep it on-topic then there is no reason for me to delete you posts (keep in mind that blind propaganda such as "Blockstream is a company and thus must be evil" will not be tolerated).

There are thousands of miners all over the world, I am one of them. There are five Core developers with commit access and only one person who has the final say in Core. I think most people here will know that what I am saying here is true.

By deciding on the blocksize they are deciding on the price of transacting on the network. I was referring to blockspace when using the term supply, that in a supply and demand economy, the miners represent the supply for blockspace, and the users the demand. Whereas Core does not actually fit into this model at all.

For you to think that basic economic principles are not relevant in a discussion of free markets and the future economics of Bitcoin then I think you are missing a very large part of the picture. I was going to thank you for being so freedom minded by not deleting my posts. But I suppose I can take this as a threat that you will start deleting my posts, so this will be my last message on this thread then.

Mining is currently "far more decentralized" than the development? No. If you count the people with commit access and the people that are are in charge of the pools, you'd probably get to a similar number. Miners don't really "care" not do they know "best". This is one of the reasons for which BIP 100 was rejected. People with common sense don't want to give more power to the miners.

You are spewing nonsense that is off-topic. Core does not decide on the price. Changing the block size limit does not have any effect on the 'supply'.

---

---

These so called principles are not relevant to the roadmap at all. Unless you have something relevant to say I suggest that you do not post. I'll delete replies that do not fit further down the road.

Obviously mining is far more decentralized presently then Bitcoin development is, so your argument does not have merit in that sense at all. Furthermore there is another significant difference between the two, which is that miners know best for their own individual circumstances what parameters and risks to take. I do not see how Core is in a better position to judge this, the opposite is obviously true. I can break it down even more for you so that you can maybe understand.

If the miners represent the supply, and the users represent the demand. Who is Core in this picture? Exactly, more like a centralized economic planning committee in this relationship, they neither represent the supply nor the demand, why should they be the ones deciding on the price? The miners who supply the market should determine the price based on the users demand. These are basic economic principles and very relevant to this discussion.

I suppose that you just do not recognize that this is a democratic form of governance.

Putting the power in the hands of the miner is a form of central planning. Do you not know how this process even works? Either the miners decide or the developers decide, there is not much of a difference in the model and it surely is not based on 'real supply and demand'.

Nonsense. This is not happening to Bitcoin. Nobody is trying to convince people that there should be no freedom. You are free to run whichever implementation you want. If you don't agree with the rules of the system then you need not run the implementation.

You are confirming what I am saying then. It is true I would like to see blocksize determined by real supply and demand, not economic central planning.

Bitcoin's governance mechanism is a form of democracy, not a democracy in the way that we know today. It is very different, I think better. However there are very democratic aspects to it, like reflecting the will of the economic majority. Which is not that dissimilar to reflecting the will of the people, which is what democracies are supposed to do in theory at least.

I think that Bitcoin is freedom, as long as enough people think this way, it will continue to be free. I suppose your position has been made quite clear here. You do not want Bitcoin to be democratic, and you prefer economic planning over the price being determined through supply and demand. I can respect your directness and consistency here.

This is exactly why we need to have the development of Bitcoin distributed across several implementations. This would solve the problem of all open source projects intrinsically being dictatorships, this is why development needs to become more decentralized in order for the governance mechanism of Bitcoin to function better, fortunately that is happening now.

FUD as always. Please stop posting nonsense. Changes don't take long if they are properly coded, tested and documented. Segwit is coming in ~2 months. It is expected for April, albeit it can come sooner or later.

---

---

I wonder what your price was.

---

---

You're welcome. I'll add more if I find anything useful/interesting.

Users don't care what system they are using, if there is really a market demand, then this solution will be widely spread by the time your solution is ready and pass major consensus threshold (might take years). However if no one is interested in micro payment channels thus no one is buying into 21inc's solution(as my research indicated), then it is a good indicator that your R&D direction is wrong

Yes bitcoin is not democracy, it is consensus, but to form a consensus is extremely time consuming. It could drag you years to make a decision, much less efficient then a simple company like 21 inc directly implement what they want without the need for reaching agreement among core devs

In fact I'm still wondering about the governance model in Git, IMO any of the core devs can wipe out all the changes done by other core devs. I don't see how a controversial change like segwit or blocksize increase can make their way into GIT without all the 5 guys agree to it. Even a 2MB increase could drag for one year, a large change like segwit is estimated about 2 years at best

Thank you for this roadmap visualization.

So your answer is putting more power in the hands of the miners? How lovely.

Bitcoin is not a democracy. How many times does this have to be explained to you guys?

Nonsense. Their system is not comparable to LN. Their micro payments are limited to their systems. I should not be suprised that you'd throw away IBLT and weak blocks. Your knowledge is really limited and faulty.

Is this slide written to win an election?

libsecp256k1 is good, rest is not needed. Now we have LN realized on 21inc's computer,
https://21.co/learn/intro-to-micropayment-channels/#introduction-to-micropayment-channels

It clearly showed that you don't need to mess with bitcoin protocol to make those extra features. When LN is not needed, SW is not needed, because then the txid problem will be trivial, back to scaling with lifting block size