Topic: Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud) - page 201. (Read 378996 times)

Firstly, it isn't 'blunt force'.  The cap has been around for many years and everyone has known about it and talked about it for nearly that amount of time.  Yes, the marketing cheerleaders tried to bury it, but people who count have been keenly aware of it.  I personally didn't know about it from the moment I read the whitepaper or even from the moment I bought my first Bitcoin, but it was not terribly long afterwards.  Indeed, concern about the relatively obvious problem of unmitigated growth actually worked as a negative in my initial accumulation phase because I could see the danger.  When I learned that that problem had been thought of by Satoshi and the 1MB patch was in place it was a big load off my mind.

Secondly, blocks are to this point full of a large percentage of crap that does not need to be there.  It serves as a giant and resilient buffer to absorb any 'blunt force' impact we are likely to see.  When this buffer comes within anywhere near it's design strength then we'll have a basis for forming something which remotely resembles a 'consensus' on block size.  By that time we'll know quite a lot more about the resilience of the global internet itself as well and that is an utterly critical element in the security of something like Bitcoin.

I am increasingly doubtful of dynamic proposals for two reasons: they can be gamed by miners and they don't address the actual problem of cost externalization to nodes. My hope is that we can eventually set the blocksize in stone forever when we have built the proper infrastructures of payment channels, sidechains and quality off-chain services. If these prove to be more efficient, faster and generally more easy to use then I, for one, wouldn't care using them for 95% of my transactions.


It's not a gamble, it's economics. You might not agree but you're wrong. The one-percenters are not the governement, they could careless about "control". What they care about is privacy and security for their wealth from governement taxes, inflation, confiscation, censorship etc. Bitcoin is the one and only coin which currently boast these attributes.

So no, again, it is not a matter of interpretation: you are absolutely wrong about this aspect. I don't want a "one-percenter exclusive" coin, I want the coin that the 1% will adopt, because that is where the value resides.


Again, no amount of twist and turns will make you right. The miners prefer clients who can pay for their services. If "the majority" can't, they won't think twice about leaving them in the dust.

I'm sorry for the strong words but as one wise man by the name of  hdbuck once said : fuck compromises, fuck the majority.  If you wanna argue there is nothing we can do to stop centralization then fuck you too, you're definitely not working with us (those that actually care about Bitcoin and what it stands for).

Hence why I've been trying to find some common ground with dynamic proposals.  I'm not saying it has to be raised right now.  Please stop asserting this.  I'm not saying let's support free shit for everyone.  Please stop asserting this.  A dynamic proposal would encourage a fee market in a more natural and gradual way than a blunt-force cap and provides some flexibility for the network if we do see a sudden surge in traffic.  It doesn't mean free shit for everyone forever.



That's a big gamble for you to take.  I'm highly dubious that most one-percenters are going to repeat the mistake some people here are making.  They're going to invest in something they can control.  They're not going to invest in an open source coin where they can't enforce rules that benefit them at the expense of everyone else.  If you want one-percenter-coin, I suggest you get coding on a closed source project.  Bitcoin clearly wasn't designed to entrench the status quo, it was designed to disrupt it.



Again, there's no way you can prevent centralisation altogether.  You can either work with us and find a compromise that keeps centralisation to a minimum, or you can take the risk that the majority won't continue supporting a network that doesn't support them and lose some hashpower to the network that does.  Again, it's an open source coin, so it's inevitable that miners will have the choice eventually.  There is literally nothing you can do to prevent that happening, so by your definition, it's already broken and you should have chosen a closed source coin to invest in.

Join us at bitco.in!

annnnd you back on ignore.

Yes. What doesn't stand is your bold statement.

 

I really want to work with you but I can't do that until you see things a bit more clearly.

First, you have the dilemma wrong. I cannot say why you pretend the small block size benefits early adopters (other than they're rich?) but realise you could find yourself in their seat sooner than later. To be clear, what I mean by that is lifting the block size cap effectively works as a subsidy for transaction fees. What we are now experiencing is a crowd of newcomers that were sold on the idea that Bitcoin was this fantastic payment payment network that would somehow replace all other methods of online payment FOR FREE. In effect we have created a considerable mass of people who feel they are entitled to a certain RIGHT to transact on Bitcoin's blockchain at zero or very low costs.

The dilemma is this: if we lift the cap now and continue subsidizing fees where does this stop? Understand that the "Free-Shit-Army" only grows in number as Bitcoin adoption increases. At some point YOU might be the person to try and tell them that they cannot have their cake and eat it too. If the supposed adoption explosion big block supporters are trying to sell to everyone really occurs, NONE of the existing proposition will satisfy their demand. "Drama ensues."

As for your comments on people wanting a global currency forking to another chain, by all means go ahead. Unfortunately they should soon realize this is not how an economy is built. Getting 1% to adopt Bitcoin is quity simply the best case scenario around. That would mean that effectively most of the fiat wealth has transferred over to Bitcoin. That's the whole point about our little project. If you really propose that this chain goes head-to-head with the remaining 99% and their "global currency" let me break it to you now that it would be a blood bath.

Money gains value by people trusting capital to it ie. "hodling", not by trying to exchange it for a bunch of things (transactions). Therefore, I guarantee that you are wrong and miners will follow the money because they are certain rich people can afford the prices they have to pay to cover the miners' cost of supporting the network


That part is particularely disappointing. You seemingly understand the dynamics at stake but can't put them together. Bitcoin is not about having miners do whatever they'd like so as to maximize profit. If it was it would be broken already. What you are describing is precisely the tragedy of the commons that would unfold if miners get to pick the size of the blocks: they would eventually be incentivized to create ever-bigger blocks while externalizing costs to nodes who aren't paid for their work.

In short, the incentives of two major players in the network are no longer aligned and all hell breaks lose as the only way to continue running the network is to centralize.

no.

My analogy still stand.

yep, as referred more precisely in Byzatine Fault Tolerance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_fault_tolerance

The BGP ting is yet another piece of shiny shit we throw at them clueless n00bs so they at least could try at impress da sheeps at 'bitcoin' conventions.. ^^

And it was never technically solved, because it is impossible. All Bitcoin does is carefully arrange incentives to work around the problem.

Truly, a great circlejerk. Weirdest thing is that bitcointalk staff aren't even censoring XT/BIP101 discussion. Maybe few posts are moved to the altcoin section but that's all. It's funny to see people get mad over promotion of a non consensus fork not being welcome in bitfcointalk.org

lol, my statement is perfectly correct.

If you cant understand its not my problem. I'm done teaching the n00bs/shills.

Also, please educate yourself before byzantinamaze us all with your persistant ignorance: https://financialcryptography.com/mt/archives/001522.html (the difference between Byzantine Generals and BFT)

Else go byzantine yourself.

Of course I understand, you've been very clear.  I just happen not to agree.  Therein lies the dilemma.  As far as it goes for the "mess" you mention, I still can't help but see the timeline like this:

Early adopters buy in,
Satoshi then introduces the 1mb cap (without testing) and there's little-to-no drama whatsoever,
Early adopters realise this could benefit them immensely if they can keep it capped for as long as possible,
Someone proposes a change to the cap as they realise not doing so could be detrimental to late adopters,
Drama ensues.

While I recognise there are implications for decentralisation if the blocksize is too large, I still have a feeling this is being overplayed.  I'm prepared to support smaller increases if that's what it takes to break the deadlock (as are others, so work with us, not against us), but I won't accept something that only results in creating a safe haven for some one-percenters if everything else in the global economy goes tits up.  There's a balance to be struck.  Either we find that balance, or things get messy and we find out how much the asset class is really worth when the people who want a global currency are on another chain.  I guarantee you won't attract the same level of hashpower if it plays out like that, so think this through very carefully.


I'm sure you'd like us to believe it's impossible and to go somewhere else, but we're not going anywhere.  I'm sure you'd like us to stop having this discussion and allow a slim possibility of a safe haven for a privileged few, but we're not going to stop.  And even if we did stop, you still probably wouldn't get what you want.  Ultimately, larger blocks will provide greater financial benefits to miners than small ones.  Ergo, miners are going to choose larger blocks given the opportunity.  I can't see how you're going to prevent that from happening.  There is no reality or alternate universe where this doesn't hold true.  Choose your next investment more carefully if that's not what you wanted.

That's a very bold statement here and far from being true. Solving the Byzantine generals problem was once considered impossible too.

I swear this debate brought the biggest posers out of the woodwork.... Everyone is acting like a spoiled child pretending like all of their transactions absolutely need censorship resistance and billions of dollars of proof of work piled on them 

I am confident I should encounter only on a few occasions, in my whole life, a situation where Bitcoin blockchain security will be absolutely mandatory. For everything else, there's gonna be Lightning 

Global currency as you like to refer to it, is technically impossible on a single layer, and considering Proof-of Work and its distributed consensus design.

So yea, privilege it is.

For the rest there is mastercard.

or ripple... but XT not even since its been #REKT..

I wouldn't recommend this thread to anyone. It's certainly the biggest circlejerk currently running in the Bitcoin community.

I would hope seeing the mess the current debate for change has created you would understand why some people are against any change to the consensus protocol as long as Bitcoin works as intended.