Topic: Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud) - page 199. (Read 379003 times)

#AgainstBitcoinXT

It's against the philosophy of Bitcoin. A better option but still not ideal is to soft fork with the extended blocks. Gmaxwell knows what hes talking about

That is not correct, you must have mistaken me with someone. I was never in support of XT nor of the "urgency" for increasing the block size limit. I was always strongly against XT and have tried to properly explain why it was a bad idea (I admit, I probably did unintentionally made some bad posts along the way). Just as you've said, it is hard to remember everything and everyone's opinions.

DooMAD's opinion has however changes to a more sensitive opinion. Looking at the current proposals, I'd say that a mixture of BIP100 and BIP105 would result in the best possible solution (read first part of sentence again). Yes, I've also heard of BIP000 on reddit.

Not sure if i remember correctly (kinda lost track of the forkers wannabees) but it seems your personnal view on the matter has somehow evolved from stupid fork urge to a more sensitive opinion. If so, i thank you for your intellectual honesty, and welcome on board on the side of reason.

Ps: ever heard of bip000? No fud, much sense there.

Well anything properly coded and implemented would work, so that is not the case. We can not take the cap out and we would be doing something very risky (fee market, spam, etc.). XT was probably created as a programmed fork for the sole reason of taking over power. It was never really about the block size debate.
As far as all the proposals are concerned, some people (with the knowledge; e.g. developers) are very concerned about potential problems and centralization. We can't just risk a $3+Bn market with something that was never properly tested. I favor a block size increase (to a certain degree), and I favor dynamically changing blocks (however, I do not support the proposed halving and doubling in BIP105).

Once a sick stalker - always a sick stalker.
The bitcoin price is on the increase because BIP101 triggered several proposals to increase the block size limit. Nobody is taking the 1MB'ers seriously anymore.

I don't have any particular quarrels with any of that.  Again, in case you missed it, I agree with you that centralisation will likely be an issue in future if this is not handled correctly.  But now allow me to elucidate for you as to the monumental lapse in judgement you've made.  You have placed all your focus on derailing BIP101.  Here's the sum total of what you've achieved:

• You've painted yourselves into a corner and left no margin to negotiate,

but worse than that,

• You've left the door wide open for BIP100

Like, wiiiiiiiiiiiiiiide open.  Let me spell it out for you in no uncertain terms.  Character assassinations of Gavin and Mike do not get you a better proposal.  Ridiculing XT does not get you a better proposal.  Stupid troll threads and memes like "gavinistas" and "#rekt" do not get you a better proposal.  Calling everyone "clueless noobs" does not get you a better proposal.  It gets you BIP100.  Carte blanche for the miners.  Stop butting heads with me for just a moment and consider BIP100 for the threat it represents to decentralisation.

Message received, you don't like BIP101.  We get it.  But for all the things you've said about BIP101, the one thing you can't deny is that it's still an algorithmic proposal that doesn't hand total control to the miners on a silver platter.  The point has already been conceded that some miners will obviously want bigger blocks and that bigger blocks will lead to centralisation.  We are both on the same page at this point, so we must have some common ground in believing BIP100 is not the correct solution.  

In hindsight, you would have been far more sensible to work with the community and curtail the increases proposed by BIP101 to something more reasonable that was still controlled algorithmically.  Instead you chose to torpedo it with reckless abandon, creating a rift and resulting in a small number of you standing in stark contrast to the rest of the community.  Please compromise.  Or we'll be stuck with BIP100.



On the same topic as the first part of my post, consider which is worse:

• A system where miners have to expend considerable time and resources to have a chance at gaming the system to manipulate a blocksize that benefits them (dynamic blocksize),

or

• A system where miners have to expend zero time and resources to simply snap their fingers and select a blocksize that benefits them (BIP100)

Would have thought the answer was pretty obvious.

Are you going to continue to decry a reasonable and controlled increase, effectively drawing a line in the sand and allowing BIP100 to go ahead unchallenged?  The tactics you've employed to derail BIP101 won't work against BIP100, so again, you need to consider your options very carefully.  Stop the trolling and FUD and start working with the rest of the community to find an agreeable proposal that isn't BIP100 and miners beginning to act more like central bankers dictating monetary policy.  No one wants that (except maybe the largest of the mining pools).

Still like getting blood from a stone with you guys.  FFS listen to reason already.  


COMPROMISE.

Is it safe to say that this comment is based on your own unfinished paper? I've read discussion on the mailing list, and there seem to be some significant drawbacks in it.
Excuse me if I'm incorrect, but I guess that the main argument for a fee market existing without a blocksize limit is that the block data needed to be transmitted scales linearly with the block size. I don't think this is true, as there are technical solutions making block propagation practically O(1). I admit that theoretically costs of transactions may be non-zero (my knowledge on the subject is superficial atm), but practically it doesn't matter as it's close enough to it to conclude that a healthy (i.e. capable of funding miners) fee market cannot exist there without serious deformations of the system.

Hopefully not.  Bitcoin price is on the increase.  It would be a shame if cypherdick came back there where he has a voice several decibels above that of a house-mouse and fucked it up for us hodlers again.

By his original handle 'cypherdoc' he is widely known and hopeless rekt ass-clown now so if he was not smart enough to have created a few sock puppets back in the day he'll have to come crawling back as a newbie.  If he's not tied up in court trying to hold on to the 3000 BTC which once belonged to those hoping to get Hashfast gear in time for it to do anything worthwhile that is.

Indeed. Some argue that a cap is required to create an artificial transaction scarcity for people to pay fees. The thing is, miners resources ARE scarce (electricity + bandwidth). Miners are free to drop transactions with too low fees and mine blocks smaller than the maximum allowed if it becomes uneconomical for them or if their hardware does not support the volume incurring. This will creates a fee market even if blocks would have no limit at all. Miners will compete to get the cheaper electricity and best bandwidth allowing fees to be as low as possible based on a competitive environment depending on transaction volume and miners resources.

It just makes perfect sense.

Haha there's certainly no universal law that says that.

However, I should mention that there is still one edge case that is not understood regarding security…and it won't matter till we're all dead anyways…but no one has rigorously shown what happens when the block reward goes away in terms of the equilibrium hash power securing the Blockchain.  I think I can show that the hashing power does not fall to zero in a free market with zero inflation, but I'm not there yet.  

We're still on the same side in l'affaire HF, but the Great Schism has driven us apart otherwise.  Civil wars entail turning brother against brother.  If you check Frap.doc's locked thread, you see multiple pages of us directly attacking each other.

It was all in good fun, but he's being a very sore loser about XT's ignoble fate of being tossed away like yesterday's jam.

Hopefully he'll get bored of triangle jerking with Solex and PeterR on their forum of misfit Gavinistas, and come back to us.  I believe some day we'll laugh (over a few beers) about our never-ending "giant nerd coder drama fest."   

Peter,

can we agree that there is no universal law that says "blocks must be full to pay for security"
even if it was said on Reddit?

 

Many of the small-blockers thinks that because "demand for block space can be considered infinite," that we need a block size limit to keep blocks from becoming arbitrarily large. There's a quote by Revalin that "Bitcoin is the Devil's way of teaching geeks economics."  This is certainly true in this case, because the economists resolved the paradox of "infinite demand" over 100 years ago. 

Indeed, demand can be considered infinite, but only as the price of the commodity tends to zero.  As the price increases, the quantity demanded decreases.  This is known as the Law of Demand. 

In the case of Bitcoin, the cost to produce block space grows exponentially with the size of the block (source) due to the increased chances of orphaning a larger block.  This means that the supply curve always intersects the demand curve at a finite block size.  This is the reason the transaction fee market exists without a block size limit. 

It's basically just another way of saying that there's nothing special about the new economic commodity called "block space."  The Laws of Supply and Demand apply like the do for other commodities. 

@brg444,

Thank you for an on-topic response.

However, it sounds like you and Matt are speaking to something else and so
I can't really comment.

My understanding of the Davout reddit argument of "blocks must be full"
is because if blockspace isn't a scarce resource, then everyone will
just pay the minimum fee that any reasonably sized pool charges and ALL
of the transactions in the mempool will get in.  

(But as I said, I contest the logic of that argument.)

Even IF the Davout argument turns out to have merit,
it would still make sense to allow for bigger blocks now
since the subsidies are likely going to be higher than fees
for at least a decade.

I'm not sure this is the tragedy of the commons idea he's referring to.

My guess is he's essentially referring to what I also proposed to be a tragedy of the commons in that miners will be incentivized to include as many transactions as possible within their blocks at potentially very little cost while the cost of a bloated blockchain are externalized to the nodes who are not paid for their work.

Here are two quotes from Matt Corrallo on that subject:



Note that "optimize" here essentially means "centralize".

I read this reddit.

I'm not so sure that this "tragedy of the commons",
would be fatal... which is the central argument of this Reddit post.

What the Redditor is saying is the following:

If you have a normal minimum fee, say .0001 BTC,
what happens if a large pool drops their minimum fee
to half that?  Most users would only pay the new
minimum of .00005, content to wait till that pool mines their
next block.  With such a small fee, it is likely that
no one can make money and so many miners will give up
and drop out of the network or switch to that pool.

So far the argument makes sense.

However, how does the pool that is driving everyone out
pay their bills?  They have to eventually raise their
fees to at least cover costs.  

Any way you slice it, a new equilibrium will be reached.

It's just a different version of what we have today,
where the difficulty level reaches an equilibrium based on
how money miners are able to afford to invest
into hashing power.

Yes, when subsidies are gone or greatly diminished,
the overall network hashrate may be lower than it is today,
depending on the transaction volume.  Perhaps transaction fees
would become percentage based if volume was low.

But I still think it would be possible to have the free market
work it out without limiting the blocksize.  The only question
would be how much security would we get.

If security is low because transaction volume is low,
the idea behind limiting the blocksize would be to
squeeze more dollars out of that limited pool of
transactions.  But by what factor can they increase it over
the free market?  Can they double it?  Triple it?  
If X hashes/second is insufficient, who is to say that 3X is?

It's a very interesting topic and probably some mathematical
models can be run.

But I think the blanket statement made here is false, unless someone
can show me otherwise with some hard figures.

P.S.  Still semi-ignoring this thread because of all the noise.
Don't expect me to reply to your response unless you make
a solid point.  Thanks.

Peter I'm curious if you've considered Adam's blockchain extension proposal?
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/39kqzs/how_about_a_softfork_optin_blocksize_increase

It seems to provide, in some capacity, the type of node liberty you wished for.

Both the Chinese and non-Chinese miners will suffer higher orphan rates than if the connectivity through the Great Firewall of China was faster.  The side with the greater hash power will suffer less losses due to orphans (all else equal); however, miners from either side will directly benefit by finding ways to improve connectivity with those on the other side of the wall.  In other words, there is a mutual incentive to get around the wall. 

Hey, Icebreaker, you and cypherdick were on the same side during the HF scam.  Now you're on opposite sides of the XT drama.  How'd that happen?  I haven't noticed any direct attacks by you against cypherdick during the XT fight, but maybe I've missed them.  Any comment?

Stumbled on some gems reading the dev list

#REKT