Topic: Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud) - page 214. (Read 378999 times)

no-one credible is saying that, how many times...


More stuff I didn't say.  Is this the way to conduct an argument, pretending you're arguing with someone else about different questions, then you can just say whatever you like?


I cant tell whether you're dishonest or just really confused. You're trying to say that mining is now more decentralised than the early days, yet also more centralised too? And how does increasing the blocksize limit beyond projected trends for the netowrk resources not encourage further decentralisation?  

I agree that eventually off chain solutions need to be used in order to scale Bitcoin to a massive scale, however I just do not think that the cut of point for the transaction limit should be one megabyte. It would be better to keep the network as inclusive and inexpensive as possible from the users perspective since it is more important to increase adoption first, this would help Bitcoins survival into the future. I do think however that there should be a block size limit and a fee market should develop in the future, but I do not think that time is now, since the block reward is still high and adoption is still relatively low. Furthermore we need higher transaction volume in order to pay the miners far into the future as well. It can be argued that having a higher volume of transactions at a lower cost will be more profitable for mining then having lower volume at a higher cost.

To think that miners should solo mine and that this will aid decentralization is pretty much a myth, since in order to solo mine it would require a operation that would cost millions of dollars to setup. Solo mining is just not feasible anymore except for the extremely large industrial miners. P2P mining still only represents a very small proportion of miners and therefore the variance is also still to high, and there can sometimes be problems setting up the latest asics for P2P mining as well.

Actually the pool distribution has become more decentralized over the last few months. And more then 70% of mining power is inside of pools with open access. I can agree that BIP101 does nothing about reversing the trend in mining centralization, however it also does nothing to worsen the situation either. Just leaving the block size where it is now does not effect mining centralization either. I personally do not think that mining centralization is even a problem, people worry to much about mining. It is a self balancing system, no matter what happens, mining will balance itself out because of how incentive and the free markets work. I do not think that there is anything wrong with how mining functions today. Yes it is far more centralized then it was in the beginning, but this should have been expected because of economies of scale, but to think that we can go back to how it used to be is unrealistic. I expect mining to become more decentralized over time as more people come into the space and compete with each other. As a miner I am more concerned about having access to the latest equipment, however that is a completely different issue which is not related to the block size debate.

https://blockchain.info/pools?show_adv=no

It's actually a direct contradiction. Gavin Andresen, the architect of BIP101, doesn't share your vision at all. He fully admits that BIP101 doesn't solve the scaling problem, and that off-chain transactions are the only way to let everyone worldwide use the network.


And what are the pools using the node for, spending money on groceries? They're mining with them. Also, you're ignoring the peer to peer miners and the solo miners.

And furthermore, the pools are currently in a bad state; several have shutdown since the boom years, and the network is now mostly solo miners (BitFury, KNC and at least one Chinese pool are solo operators, not open access). The only significant individualised pool mining is taking place in China, it's been deteriorating for some years now.

As a miner, how are you unaware of these basic prevailing conditions in your industry, especially seeing as they render your elucidations on the mining market null and void? Centralisation is already the trend, BIP101 is doing nothing to reverse that.

History shows this simply isn't true.

If there are more people using Bitcoin there will be more people running full nodes, I accept that it will be more difficult to run a full node however this does need to be a trade off, since the alternative would be much worse in terms of decentralization.

I am actually a miner myself, so I do know how mining works. Miners do not run full nodes, the pools do. All that is sent to the miners is the hash or the cryptographic problem that must be solved. This can be done across a 56K dial up connection, even if we had 8gig blocks, It would make no difference for the miners whatsoever. Since the pools can be setup in data centers with high bandwidth connections and favorable block propagation. Miners are free to point their mining power to whatever pool they want. The pools in this way function similarly to a Representative democracy. Since a free market of pools can exist and the miners would never be incentivized to allow one pool to grow so big that it would endanger the value proposition of Bitcoin. This is why I think that increasing the block size would not lead to increased mining centralization.

I have written about this in more detail here:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/why-i-support-bip101-1164464

BIP101 disincentives full nodes also.

How does increasing numbers of people using the blockchain directly not also disincentivise full nodes? (all under the most aggressive block increase proposal still standing that is BIP101, no less)

Miners do run full nodes, they couldn't mine transactions without access to the full blockchain history. Where you got that opposite idea from I do not know.

This number includes XT, NotXT and fake nodes.

Please spread your misinformation elsewhere.

I'd also like to remind you to use the altcoin section when discussing altcoins.

ya.ya.yo!

This is really oversimplifying the issue. Nodes are important, but I do hope that you understand that it needs to be a trade off. Since what would be the point of running a full node if we do not even use the blockchain directly ourselves since we would need to rely on third parties since transacting on the main Bitcoin blockchain would become prohibitively expensive. How many people do you think would run these nodes for the banks, payment processors and like you say a few billionaires? I would argue that the opposite is true, if more people are using Bitcoin directly the more likely it will be that we will have more nodes. Arbitrarily restricting the amount of people that can use Bitcoin directly would therefore not lead to an increase in the amount of nodes. Furthermore in terms of access to governance nodes are not as important in terms of governance compared to the miners, and miners do not even run full nodes, that is why miners would not be effected by this change whatsoever.

How about this: I don't particularly care about the amount of people using it. I'm more focused on the capital it attracts.

Let me stand proud and say I would forsake 1,000,000 users for every billionaire we attract. How do you like that  

Let me spin you one-liners for fun :

if we do not increase the block size it will be cheaper for more nodes to access governance of the network

if we increase the block size then it will be more expensive and less people will be privileged with this access

but who cares about the nodes, right  

You are right, just go ahead, I fully agree with you. The bold part convinced me so much. Go infinite ZOMG Blockchain!

But don't mind if I (and probably a lot more people than you think, and with a lot more bitcoins) wait on the side line original one and only truly decentralized longest valid blockchain...

This dillema in Bitcoin can not be simplified, you can not come up with one liners that adequatly explain all of the relavant factors involved with this issue. However I can present you with an extremely simplfied argument since you did request it, If you would like to see this in context I suggest you read the whole article I have written on the subject.

To put it simply, if we do not increase the block size it will be more expensive and less people will be able to use it, that is to transact on the main chain directly.

However if we increase the block size then it will be less expensive and more people will be able to use it. Even if full nodes will only be able to be hosted on powerful computers with high bandwidth connections. Considering that these would be the most likely outcomes with increased adoption. I argue that increasing the blocksize is the most decentralized option considering the alternative.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/why-i-support-bip101-1164464

I dont give a ph0rk about arguments. You or anyone else don't get to decide anything.

You dont get it, it is all about teh money. All about independance. All about screwing to the bone any sheeple, establishment or governance.

It's too late, Bitcoin is this way and there is no stopping it.

But i'm glad we are going to get rid of the n00bs and ph0rkers.

So plz go ahead and get your coins on any ph0rked blockchain.

I already have, and you have so far failed to respond to my counter argument of your rebuttal.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.12270744

The problem is you write too much. Maybe you'd like to present a cogent and concise argumentation of why BIP101 is necessary?

I am not convinced by your argument. It would be more convincing if you tried to rebuttal the arguments that have already been presented. If the fork does succeed then we can consider the fork to be the 'original' Bitcoin since it is the fork that mostly closely represents the principles of the original vision and promise of Bitcoin. Then Bitcoin would truly triumph.

I feel this whole blocksize drama is just what it is: drama. It aint gonna happen.
If they fork, the old/original version will come out as the one with the most value (as in longest valid chain, and as opposed to spammed/centralized/etc chain).

Probably there will be some adjustment time considering difficulty and the hashrate being divised, but Bitcoin 'original' can only triumph in the end.
Plus we get to loose all them ph0rking n00bs with their beloved companies, government and frappucinos.. ergo much much value

Mmmm perhaps Coinye.

This will happen if the block size is not increased and there is increased adoption, since not all of the transactions can be confirmed and there will be no way to tell how much of a transaction fee you would even need to get your transaction confirmed, which would in effect make transacting on the Bitcoin blockchain very unreliable. The blocks where never supposed to fill up that is why when they do fill up Bitcoin is not working the way it is supposed to. To quote Satoshi Nakamoto:"The current system where every user is a network node is not the intended configuration for large scale.""The eventual solution will be to not care how big it gets."

Again it is actually the other way around, not increasing the block size can be considered as breaking the social contract since the origonal promise and vission was that the block size should be increased.

I do agree with you on this in principle however I do not think that time is now, since the block reward is still high and adoption is still relatively low. Furthermore we need higher transaction volume in order to pay the miners far into the future as well. This is a case where higher volume at low cost would be better then low volume at high cost. Since it would be better to keep the network as inclusive and inexpensive as possible from the users perspective since it is more important to increase adoption first, this would help Bitcoins survival into the future. I do think however that there should be a block size limit and a fee market should develop in the future, since the block reward is still high and adoption is still relatively low. Furthermore we need higher transaction volume in order to pay the miners far into the future as well. I do not think that confining Bitcoin to the role of a clearing house, would neccesarelly provide enough incentive for mining far into the future if we want Bitcoin to be the largest and therefore the most secure proof of work blockchain.

It would be better if everyone could use the Bitcoin blockchain directly and have the same level of transparency and security as the clearing houses.

Bitcoins survivability at this point is increased the most by increasing adoption not arbitarily restricting it.

These quotes that you have posted are good but I could easily argue that each and everyone one of these quotes actually supports my argument, they are mostly ambiguous to this discussion and do not support your arguments whatsoever.

Do you know of any other altcoin which has not succeeded in mining any block, has exactly 0 transactions on its network and not 1 active user?

You must not deal or look at altcoins much eh?