Topic: Control the Flow, Control the Power (Read 971 times)

I don't think you understand your constitution, regardless I should point out your founding fathers also didn't want you/us to have the power, which is why they created it. It's also why you have an electorate college system.  It's why you don't have a pure democracy.  It's why fundamental laws that hold up your rights are very very hard to change.  Just like how the important things about bitcoin are hard for ignorant people to change.  Just like why bitcoin shouldn't be scaled.

Yes your argument is core is a centralized power which is a misunderstanding and mischaracterization.  The are not centralized just because the word core refers to a center.  You are using words wrong.

Then you argue that core are the powerholders and that sidechains will be security leaks.  These are two fundamental misnomers.

It's not intellectually dishonest for me to point out you are just a random person on the internet crying about things that aren't true. This is why I want to discuss the macro economic implications of bitcoin so that you can understand what you don't see. 

Do you fear dialogue on this subject?

Everything you are spreading is fear uncertainty and doubt.  Will you face truth?  let's open the dialogue...

It isn't the fees these financial overlords implement that bother me, its the rules they implement.

What you are selling can be perfectly legal under state and federal law, but since payment processing companies are private, they aren't restricted by the first amendment and can refuse to do business with you based upon what it is you are selling (or just about anything) - and can also unilaterally decide against you when a customer wants a payment reversed, even after you have delivered the goods.

Using the blockchain, that's not an issue. But the core developers don't want us to have the power, they want Blockstream to have the power.

That is why we have to tell them to go frack themselves.

You are trying to find a way to show that I'm not a true scotsman. It is intellectually dishonest. Please stop.

The whole point of this thread is that without bigger blocks, anyone who wants to do business will be forced to use a sidechain which puts them at the mercy of the sidechain operator. Just like before bitcoin, anyone who wanted to do business online was at the mercy of a payment processor (paypal or other).

What core is doing is taking the power to do business independent of the financial hierarchy away from the people, and I will not be silent while that takes place.

And before someone accuses me of being a Roger Ver fanboy, I think he's a charismatic pompous ass. But he's right about needing bigger blocks, though he certainly wasn't the first to see that need - Satoshi himself saw the need for bigger blocks when he implemented the 1 MB block. It's in the archives here, I can dig it up if you want to see it.

I just ordered a 240 GB Intel SSD from Amazon so I could play with libbitcoin on my workstation (libbitcoin really does need an SSD, but bitcoind doesn't) - $100. My first SSD was a 60 GB and cost way more. Mass storage is cheap, blockchain is already too big for mobile devices so the vast majority of people running full nodes are doing so from a PC where a 1 TB platter drive is so cheap most people would go for 3 TB even if a 1 TB was enough.

Storage is cheap, memory is cheap, bigger blocks really is not a problem for users or for miners.

No im trying to get an idea of what you know so i can speak to what you don't understand.  You see all the vocal loudmouthed big blockers don't have any understanding of macro economics, and I can explain to you what you don't understand.

Or is it a derail to point out the logical misunderstandings you have?

I'm not going to get pulled into a distracting side topic with you. You keep trying to do that, please stop.

These are good, don't think many object even the big pools who gain the most out of fees haven't an issue with bigger blocks

I have seen this said by quite a few people, how is this conclusion reached. The blockchain will be bigger for sure but storage space is ever expanding and cheap, I bet most people into bitcoin have enough computer equipment around to run a node with multiple TB's of data

True, but I would expect all pools to increase the sizes gradually, not jump straight to 2,4,8,16 or whatever size it could be

I read this everywhere, but this is fundamentally misguided.  If "core" is "holding back bitcoin", then core is already the centralized power of bitcoin, and bitcoin is not the slightest bit decentralized.  We just have "miner slaves" and "user slaves" doing whatever core decides to program, change or decide.   If you think that core has this power, then you think that bitcoin is core's fiat money.  Maybe this is true, but then, I don't see why you are complaining that they "take the power": according to you, they already have it.

If, on the other hand, bitcoin is a truly decentralized system, then core is just an open software writer like anybody else, and if there are competing open software proposals that implement, or don't implement, the god core's wishes, then this decentralized network will quickly come to a consensus of not using core's software and rules, but just another proposal, made somewhere else, no ?  So the only thing that we need is another set of rules, with other software, right ? Well, this exists.  There is BU for instance.

So, in as much as you think that bitcoin is decentralized, and decides by consensus what its rules are, and picks, by consensus, whatever piece of open software that implements this, core has NOTHING to say, and what the consensus is, is not at all dictated by core.  So, if bitcoin is decentralized, core cannot impose its will.  And if core CAN impose its will, bitcoin is not decentralized right at this moment.   But then, core deciding that core can decide, is tautological: they can already decide, by assumption.

Bitcoin IS decentralized, and core DOESN'T dictate anything.  What you see, is the consensus mechanism at work: immutability of the rules.  Bitcoin will not change.  The 1 MB blocks are with us for ever, and Segwit will not activate.  Period.  Want to know what bitcoin will be ?  Look at what bitcoin is today, and was, a few years ago.   The same mechanism that protects the 21 million coins, will also "protect" the 1 MB blocks and will avoid Segwit.

"bigger blocks = damage to centralization" I assume you mean damage to decentralization. I don't expect it to be a big problem and a much less dangerous then long confirmation time. And a higher chance of orphaned blocks is also not to bad if people know how to deal with it. 

Neither do I. Internet bandwidth has increased over time, and my four year old PC and consumer internet connection could easily handle bigger blocks.

what does it mean to be a socialist to you?

Centralization is caused by the cost of power. It's cheaper (subsidized) in China than it is elsewhere, that's why mining takes place there.

Yes, it's that simple.

op doesn't believe this is true.

If increasing block size was so amazing and risk free solution then we would had it already. It is not that simple as firing core devs
Higher block size = more tx per second and lower fees (most likely) but  bigger blocks = damage to decentralization and other minor technical difficulties (higher chance for orphaned blocks).

I don't know if core needs to be replaced and i don't know what is the best course of action now. Other people have strong feelings about this. What i can tell you is, that Bitcoin is complex. Even with your ever day money people have problems to understand it. Bitcoin will never be understood by the masses and so will no other coin. Therefor people will always rely on others to tell hem what is good and what is bad for them. Also there will always people exist that want to grab those powers to decide and make money while doing it. The beauty of Bitcoin was always that it was hard to do this kind of thing with Bitcoin and it would most certainly only be possible with 2nd layer solutions. Whether or nor SegWit is a power grab, there will always be someone tying to get hold of Bitcoin. Also the idea of Bitcoin is out there. If Bitcoin one day should be not what it's supposed to be, then it might take a while but the smart ones will find another coin and start using it until history repeats itself.

Do you think economics is a science?

If you really want an excuse to discredit me, I am a socialist. I'm guessing that makes me scum in your view.

But the blockchain doesn't care. And that's what made bitcoin so beautiful. It didn't care. It was a balanced ledger of inputs and outputs that anyone could use. That is being taken away from us with Core's refusal to simply increase the block size.

It's a good topic. Please don't allow it to descend into personal abuse hurling.

Satoshi envisaged millions of users using SPV wallets, and a centralisation of nodes towards big mining farms and well connected bitcoin service providers and merchants.
8 decimal digits where created to facilitate this. Currently core seem to be restricting transaction capacity to try to accelerate the deflation of BTC through unspendable UTXO's created by high fees. Segwit as a soft fork does not change this. Nothing against voluntary off-chain services.

So basically no.  How is macro-economics beside the point?