Topic: Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud) - page 141. (Read 379003 times)

Nope, the cap has changed several times. It's there because transactions are included under cost so it's a trivial and cheap DoS attack to just fill up blocks until miners and nodes just give up.

It's a known fact that subsidy will continue dropping until either this changes (txs being included under cost) or Bitcoin fails (because it currently depends on subsidisation).


Gavin and Mike have obviously been delaying all development with their nonsense. Lots of people have been distracted by this bullshit. They have certainly slowed down my contribution in a number of projects. The Core devs that have been contributing during the last couple of years (not Gavin or Mikey, who have done fuck-all in Core or anything outside of their personal projects) have been forced to waste their time because of the attack threats and the lobbying.


If we need to increase block sizes more rather than less because other preferable scalability solutions have been stalled, then in fact we're worse off. However, it's not possible to know the exact degree of the damage the cancers have caused.

The silver lining is that they are well and truly ostracised from development, which is a great thing for Bitcoin. They can go back to work in some stupid kickstarter clone or whatever is more appropriate for them to do.

The silent sobbing is real.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3n18en/mike_hearn_banned_from_bitcoindev_sept29/

Stop speculating about motivations.  You are not a psychic mind-reader.

As one of the few remaining (nearly extinct?) zero-percenter Gavinista dead-enders, this is what you should be worried about.

Either they are paid by a big block institution to show how disgusting the small blockers are; or they do not realize how repulsive and counterproductive they act for the cause they postulate. Both possibilities seem nearly impossible: To be that corrupt and to be that stupid. It remains a mystery.

I absolutely agree with this and that is my point. The vast majority of the Bitcoin network today is comprised of pooled miners. Furthermore I would not consider solo mining as necessarily favoring decentralization either, I have even calculated recently that it would require at minimum more then eight million dollars to setup a solo mining operation. The reason it is so expensive to solo mine is because you would require a very large amount of hashing power in order to decrease the variance of the reward. For such a large industrial mining operation I would consider the cost setting up a full node even with larger blocks trivial in comparison to the other costs involved with such an operation. Therefore I do not consider solo mining as an important aspect of decentralization.

I do not think that the US for example will be able to enforce such a policy in every part of the world, including rogue states. It would only take one small pool to include the censored transactions and render the efforts of the tyrants futile after all. It is true however that if a single global power could control and censor the entire internet then that would compromise Bitcoin, however increasing the blocksize would not effect the outcome of such a scenario, which I do not think would take place.

Maybe a project like maidsafe might be able to save Bitcoin if such a scenario did take place, imagine the confusion that the Bitcoin maximalists will experience when they realize that Bitcoin has been saved by an "altcoin".

Absolutely correct, and public pools represent more then seventy percent of the hash power today, and the rest of the mining power is represented by large industrial miners like Bitfury, KNC, 21 Inc, and some more. If these are the solo miners that we should protect for the sake of decentralization, that would not make any sense to me, I would even consider that a contradictory argument.

In this sense pools actually aid decentralization. Having twenty pools with thousands of individual miners is far more decentralized then just having a hundred solo miners.

I do not think we need to be concerned with the pools ability to remain a viable business, if their costs increase they can just increase their fee, I do not see how that is a problem, I also do not think we should be overly concerned about mining profitability in terms of the block size at least considering that Bitcoin mining is very much a self balancing system. You are however again conflating the separate issues of mining centralization and pool centralization. Since when we do separate these two issues it obscures the reality that the hashpower is in control of the miners not the pools. The miners are incentivized to do what is good for Bitcoin, they will not allow a monopoly to form because it would undermine part of the value proposition of Bitcoin. This is the game theory and aspects of human psychology that keeps Bitcoin secure, that is in part of why the pools are not approaching fifty one percent anymore.

I agree with this statement, however I do not think that the miners would allow pool monopolies to form, It is already very difficult to start a new pool because you would require such a large amount of hashpower to overcome variance, this is not because of the cost of running a full node however. If a majority of the pools did become comprised I do think that the miners would move to new pools, which would lead to a situation where small new pools might be able to gather enough hashpower in order for that pool to become viable. Increasing the block size does not impact the ability for miners to be anonymous since the data they send to the pool is very small regardless of the block size.

I am actually a small miner myself and I do see the danger of mining centralization, however I do not think it comes from increasing the blocksize, mining centralization is due to economies of scale and centralization of manufacturing. Consider becoming a miner yourself and help keep Bitcoin decentralized.

"I don't think so"




 

Is false, it affects solo miners, not pool miners.

Just like the US has jurisdiction of internet censorship across the world as long as it involves US in any way? (They can make up things along the way since it is not set in stone what constitutes involvement). The pool being just a service can be shut down but another one will start as long as the barrier of entry is relatively small. Increasing blocksize increases the barrier of entry for pools.

So what you say is true only for pooled miners. But the effect of bigger blocks needs to be considered on how it affects pools ability to remain a viable business because of reduced security margins and having to compete with bigger pools effective monopoly (centralized mining).

Although anonymity doesn't matter for pooled miners as much as solo miners, it will create centralization through creating pooling monopolies which will share header->header information and drive out smaller competitors. Also they are not validating blocks in that case either which is supposed to be ultimate priority of miners.

If we have pool monopolies and regulation risks on solo miners we run the risk of losing decentralization of mining on the network.

I would like to reiterate on the following two points that I consider important.

1) Bitcoin needs to demonstrate that consensus rules are fairly rigid and can hold on their own long enough despite internal pressures. If the rules are easy to change then instead of playing all the same game everyone will begin bending the playing field in their favor. The term "stagnaters" when applied to the rigid framework of long-term consensus is actually a positive thing for Bitcoin. Innovation and development needs to happen within that framework, but not to the framework itself. Only when the rules become significantly out of balance and lag far enough behind the technological advancements curve, the whole ecosystem would feel the need to adjust and re-balance.

2) If blockchain validation costs can only rise over the long term, at which point and who is going to stop this trend? Static limit on block size is the only measure that can prevent this trend from accelerating (as it has been over the last few years), but only if it becomes effective and stays active long enough to let the technology progress, while the network bandwidth target remains limited. If this long-term trend cannot be controlled and sustained, then one of the key components of the original core value proposition, namely open and accessible blockchain, will be lost. At that point the benefits of transacting on the blockchain will be nullified. Who and how is going to maintain its integrity? Who is going to let the transactions in and allow for inspections?

Trends in decentralized systems are important and need to be analyzed very carefully before any decision to change the consensus rules can be made. Bitcoin will have to adjust at certain rare and discreet moments only when absolutely necessary in order to Keep Up With The Times.

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/IWI3npXLX-c/maxresdefault.jpg

I don't have all the answers, you are right. I'm not pretending to be right, I'm having a contrary opinion to the previous poster (whilst also agreeing with his initial premise). That's allowed isn't it?

If you are referring to this post Matt Corallo was *responding* to Gavin's blog posts... (I assume that's what you mean by engaging the debate?)


Maybe, if Gavin hadn't made those posts, we'd be in exactly the same place right now. Maybe Matt would have posted something anyway. Maybe everything would have progressed exactly the same. IMHO I doubt it, but as you rightly said, I can't know that for sure.

I like how you portray me as having all the answers yet you pretend to be absolutely right about this one.

Let me guess, you feel it in your guts, right? You're just going to ignore that it was Matt Corallo that engaged the debate on the dev mailing list and that two months later Mike & Gavin decided they wouldn't play ball anymore and decide to stifle discussions and launch their failed coup?

As if BIP101/XT was ever about the block size anyway 

These rugrats will literally believe anything you'll tell them 

A Pre-emptive strike!

Yes they are, and if you want to believe that mike, gavin, XT and BIP101 had nothing to do with making that happen sooner rather than later, then feel free.

Either way it doesn't matter, provided the increase happens in time to ensure that block size can grow naturally, then everyone is happy right? We all win right?

Nope, block sizes are dead certain to increase at some point and they always were. But if you feel better believing in the tooth fairy, feel free.

is this off topic again? I can't tell. Is it disconnected from reality to think that the future is uncertain? Sign me up for my meds.

I'm now going to switch back to "BIP101/XT died for our sins", because it will be clear that it did, should the block size increase.

Of course it will be easy for the small blockers to say 'that was going to happen anyway' even though right now they are arguing it most certainly won't.

Its great when you aren't shackled to a view point, it means you can have an open mind, change what you believe based on new information. All that kind of crazy stuff. The small block shacklees will of course post tidbits of prior comments and demand that you stick by something you said. Unable to comprehend that people can move forward.

eh, surely it does although there are some valuable thread there, but then again i was just highlighting you and your forkers buddies propensions towards total disconnection from reality.

also, i concur the gavinistas do fit perfectly in there sorry butthole of a forum bitco.in

peace

You're underestimating the speculation subform if you think that thread doesn't fit in perfectly there...

still utterly wrong, misleading and you can also see the fancy rainbow grpahs pattern them PR derps like to agitate as proven science to try at make their fraudulent argument hold. #justsayin


edit: altho cant beat the GIF at this point. cant wait to see what comes next. ^^

To be fair I like this one 

oh.. but he did...


[prediction] Next spike $560,000 14 months from now

You're waiting for the next Scaling Bitcoin conference too heh   I'm curious to see what they have in store as well.

If I had to make a guess I'd say it will probably looks somewhat like Pieter Wuille's proposal but adjusted with Rusty Russel's most recent bandwidth growth estimates so something like 30% YOY increase but only for 2 years then revisit.

If you ask me this whole thing is kind of a waste of time but again I think they're just set on throwing you people a bone so as to keep you from breaking things. We'll see if the market buys it though

It does not, because XT is an altcoin.

I remember you shilling for XT back in March, and telling us "You guys keep seeing a war (now it has a name: The Bitcoin Civil War) where there is none."

Not only were you (unlike MP and myself) wrong about the emerging civil war, you were also on the wrong, IE losing, side of it.

It must be hard for someone who can argue that presumption is not negative "Because Godel" to be so utterly and completely wrong.  How humiliating!  No wonder you don't post here very much these days.