Fork off - page 19. | Bitcointalksearch.org

danielpbarron

full member

Activity: 212

Merit: 100

Daniel P. Barron

Quote from: Soros Shorts on January 11, 2015, 10:28:47 AM

Quote from: Melbustus on January 11, 2015, 01:35:32 AM

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on January 11, 2015, 01:26:13 AM

then why do people like MP freak out?

I don't know. People get things stuck in their head, dig in, and then get all stupid and irrational about it.

There are not many people like MP. Many would recall that the precursor to his MPEx web site was hosted on the same domain that also hosted some kind of Eastern European dating/escort service. Would a rational person do that?

MPEx isn't a "web site." Unlike gox and stamp and all the other scam-exchanges, MPEx is a legitimate trading engine that also happens to have a few web front-ends.

Quote from: Mircea Popescu http://trilema.com/2013/mpex-tech-stuff/

This particular design has its advantages and its disadvantages. The main advantage is that since the trade engine does not connect to the Internet, it does not need a whole lot of software. Apache, for instance, is something that it doesn't need to have installed. This lack of software makes it a lot easier to secure, and a lot more difficult to mess with. In general I have found so far that the best results in computer security are achieved not by those who are most competent at securing a system, but by those who are backed by management most inclined to simplify their task. Your mileage may, obviously, vary.

Sounds rational enough to me.

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 2965

Terminated.

Quote from: danielpbarron on January 11, 2015, 10:25:22 AM

Satoshi is gone. Gavin is not Satoshi. There was once a time when these things could have been changed; that time has passed. Or else you can expect to see this kind of scenario play out:

Quote from: mircea_popescu in #bitcoin-assets http://log.bitcoin-assets.com/?date=11-01-2015#972569

So what's next, if this somehow succeeds? Two years from now, Liberia uses bitcoin as national currency; suddenly the workers go on strike, ask for double salaries. Government asks Gavin to fork Bitcoin to give them an extra one-off five million BTC to pay the workers. Everyone agrees, right? Because: a) poor workers, they need it, and b) not agreeing would be being against expanded usage of Bitcoin. And for that matter, c) there's already precedent, the "poor users" who wanted to play but didn't want to pay transaction fees were given free stuff before.

Worst example ever. Please go away. The only reason to be against this fork would be to be against more adoption.
The limitation is really something that will cause problems in the future, a lot of them.

Such a ridiculous fork would never take place because :a) block size limit isn't a fundamental feature; b) the supply is.
Changing the block size limit doesn't affect the market or miners at all.

delulo

sr. member

Activity: 441

Merit: 250

Miners will decide on that matter. Can anybody judge better than me towards which side minders will tend?

Soros Shorts

donator

Activity: 1616

Merit: 1003

Quote from: Melbustus on January 11, 2015, 01:35:32 AM

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on January 11, 2015, 01:26:13 AM

then why do people like MP freak out?

I don't know. People get things stuck in their head, dig in, and then get all stupid and irrational about it.

There are not many people like MP. Many would recall that the precursor to his MPEx web site was hosted on the same domain that also hosted some kind of Eastern European dating/escort service. Would a rational person do that?

danielpbarron

full member

Activity: 212

Merit: 100

Daniel P. Barron

Quote from: cr1776 on January 10, 2015, 10:46:40 PM

Quote from: VectorChief on January 10, 2015, 10:22:22 PM

Quote from: colinistheman on January 10, 2015, 10:07:04 PM

Quote from: danielpbarron on January 10, 2015, 09:55:13 PM

If you are in favor of this hard fork, you are in favor of the USG. Open up to the loving arms of big brother!

This is one reasonable claim I can agree with against a fork. The principle of not changing fundamentals. Because changing them once means you can change them again. And that opens the door to corruption. Is this your main argument against the fork?

I think Satoshi didn't consider the block size to be among fundamentals, but rather a temporary precaution against DDOS attacks. PoW's nature is such that it is hard to hide because of the physical presence, thus pretending that power players of today don't exist is meaningless. We need to make them accept the new rules and for that the volume cap needs to increase. We still have Litecoin if that route fails.

You are correct - I linked to what Satoshi said about the block size just above this and it was not something untouchable. (Not that we are bound by what he said, but anyone who argues that it is fundamental, never to be changed is just uninformed.)

Satoshi is gone. Gavin is not Satoshi. There was once a time when these things could have been changed; that time has passed. Or else you can expect to see this kind of scenario play out:

Quote from: mircea_popescu in #bitcoin-assets http://log.bitcoin-assets.com/?date=11-01-2015#972569

So what's next, if this somehow succeeds? Two years from now, Liberia uses bitcoin as national currency; suddenly the workers go on strike, ask for double salaries. Government asks Gavin to fork Bitcoin to give them an extra one-off five million BTC to pay the workers. Everyone agrees, right? Because: a) poor workers, they need it, and b) not agreeing would be being against expanded usage of Bitcoin. And for that matter, c) there's already precedent, the "poor users" who wanted to play but didn't want to pay transaction fees were given free stuff before.

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 2965

Terminated.

Quote from: oda.krell on January 11, 2015, 09:34:14 AM

News at 9: Gavin still right about block size and controlled hard forks, represents majority view of Bitcoin holders and users on the topic. Mircopu Pippescex still a drama queen, but now without sockpuppet representation on btctalk ^_^

And the newbies siding with the wrong party, being against the fork.
The same story again just in a different situation, sigh.

inBitweTrust

hero member

Activity: 658

Merit: 501

Quote from: railzand on January 11, 2015, 07:38:04 AM

anyway...
I thought we were all agreed that inflation is bad...

The proposed hardfork changes have nothing to do with inflation and inflation is actually intrinsic to bitcoins design with ~10% at the moment dropping to ~5% in 2016.

Bitcoin was designed to be disinflationary and technically is not deflationary(although market adoption can make it appear thus\).

oda.krell

legendary

Activity: 1470

Merit: 1007

News at 9: Gavin still right about block size and controlled hard forks, represents majority view of Bitcoin holders and users on the topic. Mircopu Pippescex still a drama queen, but now without sockpuppet representation on btctalk ^_^

VectorChief

newbie

Activity: 56

Merit: 0

Quote from: railzand on January 11, 2015, 07:38:04 AM

satoshi left.

There are new powers that be, and powers that wanna be.

anyway...
I thought we were all agreed that inflation is bad...

You mean PoWers that BTC? Cheesy

Good permission-less distribution of coins is not possible without some inflation, that's exactly what's happening. Only private and semi-private systems have all shares distributed to stakeholders in one go, money don't work that way, sorry.

M28MmickT

sr. member

Activity: 433

Merit: 250

BTG CEO

No you fork off!

railzand

sr. member

Activity: 462

Merit: 250

Lux e tenebris

satoshi left.

There are new powers that be, and powers that wanna be.

anyway...
I thought we were all agreed that inflation is bad...

Melbustus

legendary

Activity: 1722

Merit: 1003

Quote from: solex on January 11, 2015, 01:27:13 AM

Quote from: Melbustus on January 11, 2015, 01:16:19 AM

Quote from: bg002h on January 11, 2015, 01:13:07 AM

This isn't worth talking much about. It's a foregone conclusion that the anti-spam measure called Max_block_size that was quickly added to the code without much though in the first place (other than: "yup, that'll be plenty big for a while") was destined to increase.

The newbies that disagree just don't know the history of that kludge.

Yup. That's why I keep posting this:

Quote from: satoshi on October 04, 2010, 03:48:40 PM

It can be phased in, like:

if (blocknumber > 115000)
maxblocksize = largerlimit

It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.

When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade.

I honestly believe that after Satoshi disappeared he later remembered this change was left out, and thought to himself "Damn. I should have done it when I had the chance. It'll get done .. I'm sure ... I hope I don't regret this."

Heh, yeah, note that Satoshi's "way ahead" example was block # 115,000, which was about 6 months out at the time he wrote that. Now it's been 4 years and still hasn't happened.

Melbustus

legendary

Activity: 1722

Merit: 1003

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on January 11, 2015, 01:26:13 AM

then why do people like MP freak out?

I don't know. People get things stuck in their head, dig in, and then get all stupid and irrational about it.

solex

legendary

Activity: 1078

Merit: 1002

100 satoshis -> ISO code

Quote from: Melbustus on January 11, 2015, 01:16:19 AM

Quote from: bg002h on January 11, 2015, 01:13:07 AM

This isn't worth talking much about. It's a foregone conclusion that the anti-spam measure called Max_block_size that was quickly added to the code without much though in the first place (other than: "yup, that'll be plenty big for a while") was destined to increase.

The newbies that disagree just don't know the history of that kludge.

Yup. That's why I keep posting this:

Quote from: satoshi on October 04, 2010, 03:48:40 PM

It can be phased in, like:

if (blocknumber > 115000)
maxblocksize = largerlimit

It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.

When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade.

I honestly believe that after Satoshi disappeared he later remembered this change was left out, and thought to himself "Damn. I should have done it when I had the chance. It'll get done .. I'm sure ... I hope I don't regret this."

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1004

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

then why do people like MP freak out?

Melbustus

legendary

Activity: 1722

Merit: 1003

Quote from: bg002h on January 11, 2015, 01:13:07 AM

This isn't worth talking much about. It's a foregone conclusion that the anti-spam measure called Max_block_size that was quickly added to the code without much though in the first place (other than: "yup, that'll be plenty big for a while") was destined to increase.

The newbies that disagree just don't know the history of that kludge.

Yup. That's why I keep posting this:

Quote from: satoshi on October 04, 2010, 03:48:40 PM

It can be phased in, like:

if (blocknumber > 115000)
maxblocksize = largerlimit

It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.

When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade.

bg002h

donator

Activity: 1463

Merit: 1047

I outlived my lifetime membership:)

This isn't worth talking much about. It's a foregone conclusion that the anti-spam measure called Max_block_size that was quickly added to the code without much though in the first place (other than: "yup, that'll be plenty big for a while") was destined to increase.

The newbies that disagree just don't know the history of that kludge.

solex

legendary

Activity: 1078

Merit: 1002

100 satoshis -> ISO code

Quote from: cr1776 on January 10, 2015, 10:43:45 PM

I think any of the alts could have made block sizes 100 times bigger at any point so unless all really have little understanding of the code, the argument that alts are merely waiting on software and that they would use it seems to ring hallow.

Most of them have probably accepted the code as is, because the block size limit is a long way off for any new coin. For an established coin the constant can't just be increased, the software needs a controlled switch-over. Doing it via majority block version number is best, although small communities can fork their code at a future block number.

The problem with the limit all along is that, for years, its effect is just psychological, until suddenly volumes ramp into the limit and it becomes a very real physical constraint. From a user perspective everything starts grinding to a halt, people can't transact without massive delays, they get angry, the press pours scorn on the failure, and says it proves a decentralized community can't be relied upon to maintain a currency. Some businesses have to look for alternatives.

In this climate all the alts which have a larger block limit trumpet their capability. One or two of them could gain traction and erode Bitcoin's first mover status. Serious erosion would result if nothing gets done.

I am unconvinced that sidechains help because sidechain volume also needs to be handled. Unless the SC is centralized, which raises all the trust issues again.

cr1776

legendary

Activity: 4060

Merit: 1303

Quote from: VectorChief on January 10, 2015, 10:22:22 PM

Quote from: colinistheman on January 10, 2015, 10:07:04 PM

Quote from: danielpbarron on January 10, 2015, 09:55:13 PM

If you are in favor of this hard fork, you are in favor of the USG. Open up to the loving arms of big brother!

This is one reasonable claim I can agree with against a fork. The principle of not changing fundamentals. Because changing them once means you can change them again. And that opens the door to corruption. Is this your main argument against the fork?

I think Satoshi didn't consider the block size to be among fundamentals, but rather a temporary precaution against DDOS attacks. PoW's nature is such that it is hard to hide because of the physical presence, thus pretending that power players of today don't exist is meaningless. We need to make them accept the new rules and for that the volume cap needs to increase. We still have Litecoin if that route fails.

You are correct - I linked to what Satoshi said about the block size just above this and it was not something untouchable. (Not that we are bound by what he said, but anyone who argues that it is fundamental, never to be changed is just uninformed.)

cr1776

legendary

Activity: 4060

Merit: 1303

Quote from: solex on January 10, 2015, 09:23:20 PM

Quote from: bleeding2323 on January 10, 2015, 09:18:30 PM

Quote from: colinistheman on January 10, 2015, 09:09:56 PM

Quote from: Realpra on January 10, 2015, 09:05:37 PM

Well rationally there is no way the present Bitcoin can win over a higher limit fork:

Step 1:
A. Gavin creates a higher limit BTC fork.
B. Anyone else does it.

Step 2:
Present network can never grow more than it is now, because we are already hitting the limits.

Step 3:
New system takes over by nature of being the biggest - which it cannot avoid becoming because it scales!

Good point. Very true.

As much as we would not want something else to overtake the present version of Bitcoin, if nothing is changed, it will inevitably happen once future transaction volume makes Bitcoin incapable of supporting it. That failure to meet the transaction volume would cripple Bitcoin's usability and open the door wide open for another currency to take over which can scale properly.

Not necessarily true. dont you think that the supply and demand reaction would take effect if we stopped mining bitcoin, or had no more supply?

Bitcoin has a large community backing it, and I hardly think there going to junkyard every thing, it would bring the bitcoin stable, and make it better for community as a whole.

Just thinking on it as a currency not a commodity.

Realpra is right. Once the software is written for larger block sizes then any of the 1000 alts out there can incorporate it. Many will. Supply and demand then works against Bitcoin as demand will steadily weaken for a coin that cannot scale.
Dogecoin has a large community backing it, but that is not saving it from relentless decline.

From a technical point of view, just about the only change needed is to change a constant, eg:
14 static const unsigned int MAX_BLOCK_SIZE = 1000000;

Add a zero or two and voila.

I think any of the alts could have made block sizes 100 times bigger at any point so unless all really have little understanding of the code, the argument that alts are merely waiting on software and that they would use it seems to ring hallow.

Sidechains are one option to avoid a change in the block size if no one wants it, but Satoshi had no qualms about raising the hard limit at some point. (See https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/patch-increase-block-size-limit-1347 talking about raising the limit IF needed and having no debate about it being anti-Bitcoin).

Topic: Fork off - page 19. (Read 37677 times)