But why support such a poor design for increasing the blocksize?
Because they have no time. In few months side chains will catapult bitcoin into completely different orbit that is unreachable to bitcoin enemies. They have to cripple bitcoin now. It is a question of now or never. This is why is all that hectic creation of XT nodes. 
Topic: blockstream - wants to tax you and become the new Bitcoin oligarchy - page 3. (Read 8953 times)
August 24, 2015, 04:57:58 AM
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
August 23, 2015, 08:11:47 PM
sidechains sound like they could be a great innovation. the issue that I see is they are being used to justify keeping the blocks small. Why should we be forced to use sidechains? Why can't we have sidechains AND bigger blocks?
But why support such a poor design for increasing the blocksize? The entire class of proposed solutions are presented as permanent solutions, and yet when you walk through the logic, you realise that static limits are too restrictive.
The inevitable colossal fees so derided under the mythical "1 MB 4ever" position can just as easily be reached in January 2016 if the use of the network suddenly jumps higher than the 8 fold blocksize increase. Doesn't sound at all implausible to me, it's what we're trying to encourage with the change in carrying capacity to begin with.
Then what? Emergency doubling? That won't cause another argument at all, will it? Come on.
This sounds like an all-or-nothing fallacy to me. We don't the 'perfect' solution so its better to do nothing?
I don't agree with that. I would rather see 8mb now while solutions continue to be developed.
You know perfectly well that I do not support doing nothing, and intimate as such in the very text you replied to.
You are attempting to submit to me a straw man argument. Done with you jonald, I will not entertain such open dishonesty
Please.
You were the one who just introduced a strawman: "what if there's an 8 fold increase, then we are back to square one".
You seem more interested in arguing the problems than offering solutions, so if you are done
in this thread, that is fine with me. Good day.
August 23, 2015, 08:06:36 PM
sidechains sound like they could be a great innovation. the issue that I see is they are being used to justify keeping the blocks small. Why should we be forced to use sidechains? Why can't we have sidechains AND bigger blocks?
But why support such a poor design for increasing the blocksize? The entire class of proposed solutions are presented as permanent solutions, and yet when you walk through the logic, you realise that static limits are too restrictive.
The inevitable colossal fees so derided under the mythical "1 MB 4ever" position can just as easily be reached in January 2016 if the use of the network suddenly jumps higher than the 8 fold blocksize increase. Doesn't sound at all implausible to me, it's what we're trying to encourage with the change in carrying capacity to begin with.
Then what? Emergency doubling? That won't cause another argument at all, will it? Come on.
This sounds like an all-or-nothing fallacy to me. We don't the 'perfect' solution so its better to do nothing?
I don't agree with that. I would rather see 8mb now while solutions continue to be developed.
You know perfectly well that I do not support doing nothing, and intimate as such in the very text you replied to.
You are attempting to submit to me a straw man argument. Done with you jonald, I will not entertain such open dishonesty
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
August 23, 2015, 08:02:55 PM
sidechains sound like they could be a great innovation. the issue that I see is they are being used to justify keeping the blocks small. Why should we be forced to use sidechains? Why can't we have sidechains AND bigger blocks?
But why support such a poor design for increasing the blocksize? The entire class of proposed solutions are presented as permanent solutions, and yet when you walk through the logic, you realise that static limits are too restrictive.
The inevitable colossal fees so derided under the mythical "1 MB 4ever" position can just as easily be reached in January 2016 if the use of the network suddenly jumps higher than the 8 fold blocksize increase. Doesn't sound at all implausible to me, it's what we're trying to encourage with the change in carrying capacity to begin with.
Then what? Emergency doubling? That won't cause another argument at all, will it? Come on.
This sounds like an all-or-nothing fallacy to me. We don't have the 'perfect' solution so its better to do nothing?
I don't agree with that. I would rather see 8mb now while solutions continue to be developed.
August 23, 2015, 08:00:29 PM
sidechains sound like they could be a great innovation. the issue that I see is they are being used to justify keeping the blocks small. Why should we be forced to use sidechains? Why can't we have sidechains AND bigger blocks?
I've never heard anyone ever say that Bitcoin should be off-limits to anyone who is willing to pay the going rate for transactions on a secure system. That is, one which throws a huge amount of power into locking the transactions, and maintains multiple copies of the transaction on multiple systems scattered around the world and retained indefinitely.
The cost of such a solution is significant. The costs could come down to a very low level by centralization and consolidation of the support infrastructure just as has been the case for other many other on-line services. That is very undesirable from a security standpoint however. To me it would destroy any value Bitcoin has at all. Exponentially growing blocks as Gavin and Mike have tried to ram home are a sure-fire recipe for severe centralization eventually. They pretty much bake it in.
Sidechains leverages the power of of the core solution with autonomous chains to take the load of less critical transactions. It ties things together with immutable math rather state sponsored judicial systems which are increasingly capricious. They are, to me, a pretty strong win.
August 23, 2015, 07:59:50 PM
sidechains sound like they could be a great innovation. the issue that I see is they are being used to justify keeping the blocks small. Why should we be forced to use sidechains? Why can't we have sidechains AND bigger blocks?
But why support such a poor design for increasing the blocksize? The entire class of proposed solutions are presented as permanent solutions, and yet when you walk through the logic, you realise that static limits are too restrictive.
The inevitable colossal fees so derided under the mythical "1 MB 4ever" position can just as easily be reached in January 2016 if the use of the network suddenly jumps higher than the 8 fold blocksize increase. Doesn't sound at all implausible to me, it's what we're trying to encourage with the change in carrying capacity to begin with.
Then what? Emergency doubling? That won't cause another argument at all, will it? Come on.
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
August 23, 2015, 07:54:41 PM
You nailed it Peter.
Right now people are still a bit unaware of this.
I see many posts "Everyone wants to raise the
limit, but they are still deciding how to do it".
They haven't woken up to the fact that blockstream
simply refuses to do it. That's why nodes are adopting
XT. That's why miners are voting to support bigger
blocks.
Right now people are still a bit unaware of this.
I see many posts "Everyone wants to raise the
limit, but they are still deciding how to do it".
They haven't woken up to the fact that blockstream
simply refuses to do it. That's why nodes are adopting
XT. That's why miners are voting to support bigger
blocks.
August 23, 2015, 07:38:21 PM
sidechains sound like they could be a great innovation. the issue that I see is they are being used to justify keeping the blocks small. Why should we be forced to use sidechains? Why can't we have sidechains AND bigger blocks?
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
August 23, 2015, 07:27:09 PM
sidechains sound like they could be a great innovation. the issue that I see is they are being used to justify keeping the blocks small. Why should we be forced to use sidechains? Why can't we have sidechains AND bigger blocks?
August 23, 2015, 06:54:36 PM
Actually, the real draw to me is that sidechains are an approach to NOT changing Bitcoin.
The beauty of it is that it can be said both ways. To me locking my bitcoins and switching to a side chain means I change/fork my bitcoins.
The danger of it, on the other hand, is somewhat akin locking your gold and getting nice pieces of paper in return.
That German gold is still locked there somewhere, maybe...
I absolutely won't be using sidecoins that offer me only such a thing. I don't have any paper-gold either.
I want strong and well researched crypto that allows me to be sure that I can exercise at my own digression any of the contract terms I agree to.
That I agree with.
In order for more complex use cases like contracts to be usable, physical security of private keys along with personal awareness and responsibility will be a must. Presently, losing control to a private key will result in the loss of funds associated with it. With contracts, however, it might be used to sign to things which can have more lasting effects. I wonder how digital contracts will be enforced and how to prevent abuse in cases of lost keys. Something like multisig with a third party within a web of trust will be necessary for anything other than monetary transactions.
August 23, 2015, 06:37:53 PM
Actually, the real draw to me is that sidechains are an approach to NOT changing Bitcoin.
The beauty of it is that it can be said both ways. To me locking my bitcoins and switching to a side chain means I change/fork my bitcoins.
The danger of it, on the other hand, is somewhat akin locking your gold and getting nice pieces of paper in return.
That German gold is still locked there somewhere, maybe...
I absolutely won't be using sidecoins that offer me only such a thing. I don't have any paper-gold either.
I want strong and well researched crypto that allows me to be sure that I can exercise at my own digression any of the contract terms I agree to.
August 23, 2015, 06:31:21 PM
Actually, the real draw to me is that sidechains are an approach to NOT changing Bitcoin.
The beauty of it is that it can be said both ways. To me locking my bitcoins and switching to a side chain means I change/fork my bitcoins. The danger of it, on the other hand, is somewhat akin locking your gold and getting nice pieces of paper in return.
That German gold is still locked there somewhere, maybe...
August 23, 2015, 06:20:11 PM
Actually, the real draw to me is that sidechains are an approach to NOT changing Bitcoin.
The beauty of it is that it can be said both ways. To me locking my bitcoins and switching to a side chain means I change/fork my bitcoins. August 23, 2015, 06:19:10 PM
I guess we should have both.
A system with larger blocks and a system with sidechains.
If we relax the insistence on only one having to carry the name Bitcoin, then we might end up in a very interesting battle of ideas.
Since both approaches require forking, I suggest we add a suffix to each fork.
Something like Bitcoin XT and Bitcoin SC.
Of course, it would be much cleaner if those two were implemented in separate chains to begin with, but reality is always a bit more complex than we want it to be.
The fact that most of the core devs are now employed by a single entity is somewhat alarming, but they need to eat too and then we might finally have our Bitcoin CEO.
A system with larger blocks and a system with sidechains.
If we relax the insistence on only one having to carry the name Bitcoin, then we might end up in a very interesting battle of ideas.
Since both approaches require forking, I suggest we add a suffix to each fork.
Something like Bitcoin XT and Bitcoin SC.
Of course, it would be much cleaner if those two were implemented in separate chains to begin with, but reality is always a bit more complex than we want it to be.
The fact that most of the core devs are now employed by a single entity is somewhat alarming, but they need to eat too and then we might finally have our Bitcoin CEO.
August 23, 2015, 06:11:57 PM
If blockstream is so bad, then it will never be supported. Simple as that.
I think we should add fee per output first, this to avoid attacks to the network.
After that we should wait until a fee market starts rising, and then an analysis from the community will decide the block size issue. All in Bitcoin Core of course.
I think we should add fee per output first, this to avoid attacks to the network.
After that we should wait until a fee market starts rising, and then an analysis from the community will decide the block size issue. All in Bitcoin Core of course.
August 23, 2015, 05:59:33 PM
So basically you are perfectly comfortable with the fact that a private company hires most of the Core devs? Honest question.
Are you jealous you're not hired by Blockstream? Honest question.
Side chains is a brilliant concept for forking bitcoin protocol. It is the only approach to change bitcoin without putting at risk everything achieved so far!
Actually, the real draw to me is that sidechains are an approach to NOT changing Bitcoin. One of the whole points is that in Bitcoin's current and fairly simple and well-proven form it can backstop an infinite number of customized sidechains but be isolated from problems or failures of any one of them. Every new functional addition to Bitcoin introduces new possibilities for attack. Freezing it as a workable system as soon as possible is, to me, a very good thing to do. My computation of value of each BTC is a function where security and robustness against attack is the dominant variable.
A side-effect of this isolation is that each side-currency is a black box to Bitcoin. In order to track users, an attacker would have to maintain visibility into the workings of any sidechains that he/she participated in. Since the focus of some sidechains would likely be privacy and/or security this would make an impossible approach even more impossible. I expect significant efforts to thwart the development of sidechains for this reason. At the end of the day, however, the cat is out of the bag and some sort of subordinate chain ecosystem will develop eventually. As a BTC hodler, I'd hope it would be sidechains using Bitcoin as it's backing store.
August 23, 2015, 05:47:45 PM
So basically you are perfectly comfortable with the fact that a private company hires most of the Core devs? Honest question.
Are you jealous you're not hired by Blockstream? Honest question.Side chains is a brilliant concept for forking bitcoin protocol. It is the only approach to change bitcoin without putting at risk everything achieved so far!
August 23, 2015, 05:05:55 PM
You have misunderstood the purpose of sidechains, and also Bitcoin's resiliency to control. The sidechains are not strictly to store money on, different types of data will be stored on those chains also.
I might have.
I thought Namecoin (and merged mining in general) would be a good example of those other uses,
but unlike sidechains it doesn't have to take bitcoins out of circulation in order to use.
That's the point of sidechains; using blockchain technology for a purpose that is not money.
Something like land tracking via blockchain will be interesting, but money itself should be simple and kept separate.
August 23, 2015, 04:43:52 PM
Bitcoin, as it currently stands (one currency, one chain), taps into the balance of power that exists on the planet. It means, that big players need to compete for domination in the system, keeping themselves in check and the network robust. If Bitcoin is split into sidechains, then every large geopolitical region will likely get one, which is far easier for local governments to control.
If that manifests, we will have arrived to the monetary configuration similar to that of present day fiat and therefore have achieved nothing. The block size needs to grow for as long as the network remains stable (propagation times considered). This might result in a slight shift of power from regions with a lot of hashpower to those with higher bandwidth, but that would only highlight the weaknesses those regions have in the era of technological advancements and help them become more competitive on the global landscape.
If that manifests, we will have arrived to the monetary configuration similar to that of present day fiat and therefore have achieved nothing. The block size needs to grow for as long as the network remains stable (propagation times considered). This might result in a slight shift of power from regions with a lot of hashpower to those with higher bandwidth, but that would only highlight the weaknesses those regions have in the era of technological advancements and help them become more competitive on the global landscape.
You have misunderstood the purpose of sidechains, and also Bitcoin's resiliency to control. The sidechains are not strictly to store money on, different types of data will be stored on those chains also.
That's the point of sidechains; using blockchain technology for a purpose that is not money.
August 23, 2015, 04:35:41 PM
Bitcoin, as it currently stands (one currency, one chain), taps into the balance of power that exists on the planet. It means, that big players need to compete for domination in the system, keeping themselves in check and the network robust. If Bitcoin is split into sidechains, then every large geopolitical region will likely get one, which is far easier for local governments to control.
If that manifests, we will have arrived at the monetary configuration similar to that of present day fiat and therefore have achieved nothing. The block size needs to grow for as long as the network remains stable (propagation times considered). This might result in a slight shift of power from regions with a lot of hashing capacity to those with higher bandwidth, but that would only highlight the weaknesses those regions have in the era of technological advancements and help them become more competitive on the global landscape.
If that manifests, we will have arrived at the monetary configuration similar to that of present day fiat and therefore have achieved nothing. The block size needs to grow for as long as the network remains stable (propagation times considered). This might result in a slight shift of power from regions with a lot of hashing capacity to those with higher bandwidth, but that would only highlight the weaknesses those regions have in the era of technological advancements and help them become more competitive on the global landscape.
Jump to: