Topic: Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud) - page 217. (Read 378999 times)

I have read your word salad full of blatant lies and misconstruction of the events. I am not interested.

We don't need no reconsideration of Bitcoin governance. Bitcoin governs itself. The blocksize question is absolutely technical. XT has turned it into a governance coup on the premise of "decentralizing" development and "inclusion". That's not happening

This is a political problem and not a technical one. Bitcoin can not and should not be divorced from already previously existing political theory. These are fundamental questions of who is in charge of Bitcoin, and how do we, and how should we reach consensus decisions. This question is as important as the block size debate itself, this question is more political in nature then it is technical, which is why I think we need to compromise some of our technical ideals in favor of political goals.

Since I have a backround in political philosophy. I have written more on this subject here:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/why-i-support-bip101-1164464

I also thought that this video was very insightful:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaaknMDbQGc

If you can't see clearly through Gavin & Mike at this point then I really can't help you. Their actions are well documented and provide enough insight into their motives and intentions. The XTfork is dangerous as it turned a technical debate into a political one using populist tactics and propaganda. Yes, they are the bad guys.


I fail to see what problem you have with my position. If you have went over my posts you surely have noticed I mainly entered the debate following the release of XT. If it isn't clear enough that is what I am opposing. That and the equivalent BIP101. Why? Because it is not a sensible proposition and has little legitimate technical backing to support it. If we are to increase the blocksize 800% I expect we should be provided considerable testings and carefully considered justifications. Gavin & Mike failed to provide that. Instead they have resorted to propaganda, fear mongering, false urgency & a battery of half-baked "models" and technology extrapolations. Even worst, they have turned this debate into a divisive governance issue well outside of the actual block size problem.

These are the same guys who tried to push for 20MB based on the previously mentioned broken tests and seeing the clear opposition "compromised" into the 8MB limit because...it's a chinese lucky number!??!?

Some will argue any number is arbitrary. That isn't wrong but there are major differences and I believe Nick Szabo had quite some good reflections about this on Twitter yesterday:






I'm sorry to hear that. I have a lot of respect for you and equally enjoy reading your thoughts on here but it has become evidently clear by anyone with an hint of deduction that these two are up to no good.

To me, Satoshi's thoughts on block size limit never seemed to imply that we should consider increasing capacity by 8000 times when we haven't even maxed out the original limit (unknowns be damned).


Let's keep block limit increases in line with realistic capacity needs, not some arbitrary application of Moore's Law.

So you are saying that reactionary solutions  are to be preferred over pro-active solutions?  Can you give me an example?

Larger blocks address near term limitations imposed solely by the arbitrary 1mb limit.  There are other scalability issues that bitcoin will face on its way to wider acceptance and use, but to be honest, we cant make plans for 5 billion users when we barely have 3 transaction per second right now. 

Blocks aren't full now, why do you need a TEMPORARY solution now when the problem doesn't yet exist? And larger block sizes aren't a sustainable long term scalability solution.

Well said, I agree entirely with the points you make here. Except for one which is relating to how we should perceive the original vision of Satoshi Nakamoto and therefore Bitcoin.

The argument for why we should stay true with Satoshis vision of bitcoin is not an "argument to authority". However to say that "The "guy" invented bitcoin. He knows more about it than you." is also not a good reason to follow "his" vision. I would argue instead that if we did sway to much from the original vision of Satoshi that this would to a certain extend break the social contract of Bitcoin and therefore part of the underlying value proposition. Furthermore since Satoshi did clearly think that we should have bigger blocks when they are needed, and our choice now is between Core and XT. I would argue that Bitcoin XT is more in line with the original vision of Satoshi, since not increasing the block size can be seen as breaking the social contract to a certain extend. Since it would change the underlying vision and promise of what Bitcoin should become. To leave the blocksize where it is now is therefore a radical change in another direction, and wanting to increase the blocksize can be considered the more conservative position. Even though it might not seem this way to many people.

This is because the status quo so to speak is opposed to the increase. This actually highlights part of the problem, to think that the status quo should in terms of development carry so much weight in terms of the importance of their opinions is to a certain extend in conflict with Bitcoins decentralized nature. There should not be a “official” client, there should be many competing clients, this is of political necessity, since as I have pointed out before such thinking leads to a centralization of power within the Core developer team. Bitcoin can not and should not be divorced from already previously existing political theory.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.12267335

I'm very tired of hearing "argument to authority" used as some reason why its OK to ignore the smartest person in the room.

The "guy" invented bitcoin. He knows more about it than you.

So yes anyone who doesn't have egomaniacal tendencies would not automatically dismiss Satoshi's opinion because it disagrees with their own.

Its a cheap trick, using it hurts your credibility. I went back and reread pages of discussion on cyphers thread the other day, because I wanted to re-evaluate my own views. I wanted to try and better understand some of the arguments against block size increases.

What i did find were some great posts by you about LN, Blockstream sidechains etc. prior to the block size debate. Very well argued, fact based, impersonal.

This is in stark contrast to the posts I have seen from you about the block size issue, which I think you have been much more 'emotional', personal attacks, outright rejection of dissenting ideas, less reasoned posts. I don't know if thats a conscious decision and I'm sorry if you don't feel the same way, its just what I have observed. I think having ICE as your 'team-mate' doesn't help as he sets a pretty bad example in this regard. The disdain you are showing for Gavin and Mike seems entirely disproportionate and based on your opinion of them rather than their actions. The XT fork is no more dangerous than any other core upgrade *unless* those that oppose core explicitly and deceitfully sabotage it. Yet you argue they are the bad guys.

You've repeatedly taken up opposition to those who would argue for a block size increase now, claiming its too soon, unneccessary. Arguing about bloat, dismissing any analysis with hypothetical 'centralisation' issues. At the same time have been vary careful to never say you aren't explicitly against a block size increase (a point which you repeatedly remind people of). The nearest thing I have seen to an actual opinion (as opposed to fairly indiscriminate opposition) is that you think 2MB would be ok.

You've never said when, and in particular *why* a particular timescale should be followed. I don't know why you would do this. What are you afraid of? Being disagreed with, being made to look foolish, being actually *wrong* about something?

I can tell you from personal experience being wrong is just as important, if not more, than being right. Don't take this to mean I think you are wrong - I honestly don't know what is for the best, I just *think* that its a block size limit increase sooner rather than later. I think that actual block sizes should be decided by miners (either Peter R style through economic incentive, or even BIP100 style - though i think the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive and in reality it will end up being a combination of both). I think the threat of bitcoin stalling because the network falls over is greater than the threat of centralisation because the blockchain is suddenly going to become bloated. I think those things - I accept others don't, but lets not pretend anyone actually knows for sure.

Maybe BIP100 is the answer, maybe it isn't. Be great to see some code (whilst respecting the fact that devs aren't obliged to produce any!) and then we shall see what we will.

Until there is a BIP100 based solution its still a binary choice between "no increase at all" (core) or BIP101 (XT). If they are the only options I'll take my chances with XT and the 2 developers who, whilst they may not be perfect, seem to be at least honest about what they are doing.

Sure they might prove me wrong, but thats for a another day. You make choices based on the information you have at the time. Then if you find out you are wrong you reevaluate and learn from your mistakes.

Hypothetical scenario: What happens as Jan Approaches and blocks are regularly full from natural traffic and theres no BIP100 on the horizon...? How long are people going to keep voting BIP100 whilst dealing with the problems of full blocks and transaction backlogs. Are miners prepared to risk failure of BTC, or will the capitulate and go BIP101 to ensure ongoing profitability can be maintained (these are business owners, there job is typically about reducing risk!). Will LN be ready? So many variables. To suggest "its all over" shows an astonishing lack of understanding for the fundamental nature of probabilistic outcomes! I can't even tell you with certainty what I'm having for dinner tomorrow.... how can you predict the emergent behaviour of hundreds 6 months out to a final outcome. Keep it real eh

ofc not. but as i said, they are not that expensive and many people like me will run one.
why do you think if a node cannot be run on a home pc then only google, ms and nsa can run one?

 

 

 

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-two-guys-at-the-heart-of-bitcoins-crisis?utm_source=mbtwitter

I'm pretty sure the market will come up with cheap specialised harware for running nodes simply because there is an incentive. There is a fairly large amount of poeple and companies that wants to run full nodes. Bitseed is just the fist iteration of these kind of devices.

 

Come on now... if you really believe that might as well use Paypal..

So you'd be alright if Google, Microsoft, hell the NSA ran the few nodes behind the Bitcoin network?

yes a hosted server.

nodes are not that important. they just relay blocks and transactions and provide connectivity. i dont see a huge impact if there arent that much.

anyhow.. its late not... have to go to sleep...

I'm not sure what you mean by root server? A VPN/hosted server?

I'm sorry but while that might be useful but it doesn't help with decentralization

ok right; i dont like authority also but i do respect the vision of satoshi because this vision was the reason why i joined - if i didnt share his vision i wouldnt be here.

but i think at standard home lines bitcoin is a bad idea. it even puts a burden on the network with just 8 possible connections. its a little bit parasitic: its nice that it works now.

a root server is not that expensive. if you want to have a little bit more security i dont see a problem to spend 50€ (thats what i pay atm for a rootserver which could handle WAY bigger blocks as we have now) for a fullnode.

I don't care about Satoshi's vision to be quite honest. I am very, very tired to hear these arguments to authority.

This is not about every user needing to run a node but making sure that they can if they wish to.

By removing the block size or increasing it too rapidly we risk losing increasing the barriers to entry so much that only datacenters of huge corporations will care about running nodes. Again, if that was Satoshi's vision, I disagree because it has clear costs for decentralization.

it seems BIP100 will win. its not bad: 200% inc or decr very three months is ok with me.
i didnt answer your points in my last posts because you dont seem to read what i wrote.

i never said we need to do anything.
all i said is we should leave that decision to the miners and that i think we need bigger blocks and that an algorithm in my honest opinion cant work.

but i cant stress enough (and i feel trolled because you now write that you want to leave that decision to miners too) that i think its the decision of miners.

well anyway my english really sucks... so i guess we just have a serious misunderstaning here..

How to achieve that? Start by offering an explanation for why we should use anything else but observed transaction volume to determine any need to increase block size. Sorry, but "what if x causes massive adoption immediately" isn't good enough. As Satoshi himself stated, we can raise the block size limit as needed, when needed.

Seriously? You haven't addressed anything that I've said and you keep repeating yourself that we need to do "this or that" without any technical explanation or logic. And I am the one acting childish?

Great, I understand what you want because you keep repeating it. Can you explain why we should be persuaded to your point of view? Or this is just based on feeling? Serious question.

I support putting the decision regarding when to increase limits in the hands of the miners, because consensus is paramount. That's one reason I support BIP 100.

can you elaborate on that?
i guess you mean bandwith/storage costs for users?

satoshis vision was that most users will use spv clients. anybody who wants more security can get a root-server / bigger vps and host a node+spv-server and use a spv-client at home.

or did i misunderstood you?

Mining centralization is somewhat of a mixed bag. While it will happen given the inherent economies of scale the most important thing is that we have a strong and diversified network of nodes who can put a check on these miners. That's essentially what they're for.

Without a blocksize you pretty much leave the nodes to the mercy of miners.