Topic: Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud) - page 96. (Read 378996 times)

Bitcoin is capped by DESIGN.

No reddit mob, nor devs (whether core or not), nor miners, nor pseudo academics charlatans can change the protocol.

But, you are indeed entirely free to fork off with your QE fantasies.

It isn't the Core Dev per say that dictate this limit but the network of peers (full nodes). If ever they decide that the current implementation of the protocol is obsolete only they hold the power to move away from it. By all accounts they haven't yet so we can assume that the market that constitutes the Bitcoin network has decided that the existing block size limit is a valid policy tool.


And how exactly would you go about doing that.

We can deduce how changes to the block size limit, Qmax, affect the behavior of the system, while holding all other variables constant (including changes to demand/adoption with time):

1. Policy actions are only effective for Qmax < Q*, where Q* is the free market equilibrium block size.
2. Network security is maximized for some Qmax | 0 < Qmax < Q* , resulting in greater network security than the no-limit case.
3. The Blockchain’s growth rate increases monotonically as Qmax increases (for Qmax < Q*).
4. The price per byte for block space decreases monotonically as Qmax increases (for Qmax < Q*).
5. Total economic activity grows monotonically as Qmax increases (for Qmax < Q*), and is maximized for all Qmax >= Q*.

So, yes, I agree that having a limit Qmax < Q* results in slower blockchain growth and greater security (for a given demand curve).  It also results in reduced economic activity and higher fees, suggesting that adoption (and with it future security) would also be hindered.

The idea that Core Dev should use the block size limit as a policy tool to balance blockchain growth with transaction fees is definitely interesting. It reminds me of J.M. Keynes's idea that state intervention was necessary to moderate "boom and bust" cycles of economic activity.  


I don't disagree.  I like the comfort of having a limit.  


I want to let the size and the limit on the size be determined naturally by the free market--that is, without top-down intervention.

The proof exists, the evidence is that Bitcoin works today. It has worked for the last six years. The entire concept of Bitcoin relies on the game theory and psychology that miners are net economically rational, otherwise proof of work would not function effectively like it does today. Bitcoin is build on this concept of aligning the incentives of the miners, if this concept is proven to be flawed then so would the entire concept of Bitcoin as we know it today. Therefore that miners are net economically rational is and always has been a core axiom of Bitcoin.

I am not sure how I could elaborate on this, what I am saying here is pretty simple after all. I am often accused of repeating myself so I will do you the favor and not repeat myself again.

I am not sure what you are referring to, a quote would be helpful.

I do not understand why you even want to make this point, I suppose I should quote some examples now:




I could easily go back and provide you with more examples, this is going back only ten pages, I do not see the point in this exercise however and it feels like a waste of my time. Since the claim that I have not been subjected to any attacks on my character whatsoever is obviously untenable, as I said earlier it is actually a rather ridiculous claim to make. I have only provided these quotes since you did challenge me to do so.

The fact is, Peter, that the blocksize limit acts as a buffer to decentralisation as well as a limit to transactions. I know you keep trying to argue the opposite, but then again, the main critcism of the block-size-as-a-scaling-solution camp has been precisely that; that you're trying to argue that black is white.

It's really simple: having a limit acts as a cap to dishonest players in the mining field increasing the blocksize faster than the rest of the market can withstand. Mining economics is determined by the access to competitive rates for the resources to mine with, and incumbents in the datacenter sector can simply swallow the mining industry up, destroying decentralisation of mining.

Your idea does actually sound good on the face of it: let the size be determined naturally. But your idea for how to achieve that is poor. Activity on the network demonstrates entirely the opposite of Melbustus' proposition: miners, transacters and simple relay nodes alike have been used as attack vectors. Bad actors exist. And let's be honest for once, Peter, you're one of them.

Bigblockism is certainly statist, the overlap is pretty big. But it's not complete, some people are bigblockists and I believe they are not statists. They are a minority in their camp though.

Coffee-in-the-chainers are people who give priority to cheap fees over centralisation concerns or any grand ideals, by and large. There are exceptions.

Yes we can prove this is not true by simply demonstrating that characterization of miners as a group is pure socialist drivel.

That comment in itself is pretty worthless. You perpetuate the illusion that "the miners" exist. Miners are individual. If you don't believe that some can be led to act irrationally, no matter if it is substainable or not, then you're a fool, plain & simple.


You fail to address the argument. Following your logic the supply should be left to the free market, who apparently knows best.


So you ultimately fail to address any of my arguments then conclude with a poor appeal to authority...

Next!