Topic: Fork off - page 5. (Read 37776 times)

No, no, and no. You're working on the assumption that bitcoin depends on the poor, when it's the poor that depend on bitcoin. Isn't it the 1% that controls most of the wealth in the world? So then how are the other 99% supposed to support the price of bitcoin with their coffee purchases? They don't even have savings, let alone liquid cash to invest in wild speculations. But they will use bitcoin regardless, not because it's faster than credit cards, and not because its fees are lower. They will use bitcoin because it is sound money. Maybe they won't use it directly (tx on the blockchain), but they will have bank accounts with debit cards denominated in bitcoin. Maybe there will even be privately issued paper notes as receipts for a bitcoin deposit (the way dollars used to be with gold). But all of that is for naught if the rules governing bitcoin are allowed to change; it would just be a less efficient version of the Federal Reserve, and I don't think anyone will want to invest in that. Strict adherence to the original set of rules is the best course of action for "mass adoption."

That's actually a compliment in meta. What do you care? YOU HAVE GOOOOOOOOLLLLLD!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Questions for those who want to keep the block size limit:

Does keeping the block size lead to less adoption?
Does less adoption lead to a less popular network?
Does a less popular network undermine the value of each bitcoin?

If the answer to all 3 questions is 'yes', then it appears that by keeping the block size limit we'll have made it harder to transact something of lesser value. What is the point?

First and foremost, bitcoins must be a monetary foundation and that can only happen if bitcoins themselves have value. Any changes that potentially lead to that value being threatened (eg. failure to keep up with alternative methods) will lead to the failure of Bitcoin.

Securing the network can be solved with various methods, hard transaction limit however cannot.

---

I don't take any sides, just couldn't resist

You, guys, are going in circles.

Questions for those who want to raise the block size limit:

Does increasing the block size lead to more centralization?
Does increased centralization lead to a less secure network?
Does a less secure network undermine the value of each bitcoin?

If the answer to all 3 questions is 'yes', then it appears that by increasing the block size limit we'll have made it easier to transact something of lesser value. What is the point?

First and foremost, bitcoins must be a monetary foundation and that can only happen if bitcoins themselves have value. Any changes that potentially lead to that value being threatened (eg. centralization) will lead to the failure of Bitcoin.

Centralization of the payment network (off chain solutions) can be kept honest through competition/free market forces, centralization of the underlying money however cannot.

You seem to only have been given a meta-brain.



Circular logic is circular.

For some reason, I read the title as F### Off. #justsayin

Are you even reading this thread? You just saw "fork" in a title and stopped by to vomit up the same stuff that's been re-hashed for twenty pages? At least try to add something new to the "conversation."

But it actually is in a way. How in hell do fix the 1MB thing without forking? we need a bigger limit.

Look at these answers and notice they are all about costs, and yet he thinks people are going to teleport bricks of gold. Gold transactions are rare. Only one Satoshi is needed to send gold since it requires counterparty risk. There's no sense in having any fee at all. Only metadata is needed. Since he thinks the block reward is so large, perhaps we should do away with bitcoins and only use one metadata transaction per block.

Insecure. In the second case, the blocks would be much larger and therefor the blockchain would be more expensive to distribute and store. It is less secure because less people will be able to afford to run full nodes, causing the network to centralize. I'm almost sorry for ever taking on the mantra of "the fees need to go up to help pay the miners." I think you may be on to something with this quote:


But it doesn't change the fact that security depends on more than just giving incentive to the miners. There is more at stake by changing block size than just transaction fees. Do you know how long it takes to sync your copy of the blockchain with the rest of the network? It takes at least a week (more like two or three if you don't have the latest hardware). That's with a 1 MB limit (rarely reached). And you want to make it harder for me to catch up with the network, so that redditards can tip each other less than a coffee's worth of bitcoin. I don't want those transactions on my hard-drive; I don't want to broadcast those transactions over my internet connection. The fee isn't so much to help pay for the security, it's to make frivolous transactions cost-prohibitive. It would be just as good if transaction fees went to nobody. If you're going to spam my hard-drive, bandwidth, and processing power with insignificant micro-transactions, you're gonna have to sacrifice something. But not if the limit keeps getting raised.


Incredible.. "increasing block size is bad for fees, so we might have to also increase the block reward." How much bitcoin do you even have? Do you think waxing philosophical on things you have no business discussing is a suitable replacement for financial investment? It's easy to say "change all the rules" when you don't have any skin in the game. I'd like to see someone with greater than 10`000 BTC come forward and demand a rules change, not because it would be justified, but because at least they have some business making the demand. The rest of you can buzz off. Do you think I'm worried that you'll take your penny transactions to another scamcoin? I'm not. Good riddance.

Agreeing on increasing the block size limit is a higher priority than anything else at this point and the rest of the stuff is much further into the future anyway, so we'll get to that in time.

Adaptability to changing environment might be crucial for success of the system, the competition isn't asleep either, let the leanest and meanest honeybadger win! Evolutionists are gonna like this one .

Evidence of what exactly? The fees today hardly equal a tiny fraction of the block reward, yet you're advocating increasing available space?



Since it's obviously costlier to mine a bigger block, in lots of ways, the expected profit can only be lower if the revenue is the same, and hence the chain is *less* secure.



Ask anyone with a bit of money in the bank, that's fucking cheap to teleport gold.

We disagree with priorities , but agreeing that both are extremely important is good enough

I would consider the idea of network security stemming from activity and competition as the most fundamental principle of Bitcoin, which separates it from any other security models achieved by decree or elements thereof.

I agree that there are more secure models requiring less energy, but if it comes at a cost of having certain (groups of) people holding the keys, then we have stepped on a slippery slope.

In that regard being disinflationary is less fundamental than being protected by competition. But I'm not saying that we have to sacrifice the former in order to maintain the latter, just that it is the last resort option in case we couldn't come up with more creative solutions, which I'm sure we will .

There are many other ways to secure the network , like not exclusively relying on the PoW algo, but adding others which have different security considerations , benefits and weaknesses to PoW. This would make bitcoin more robust and secure. Another possibility is that nothing needs to be done because BTC grows so much that valuation alone stays ahead of disinflation or the laws of economics and thermodynamics force miners to make consumable heating devices to pay for security.(solving the centralization concerns as well)

Other possibilities of securing the network include using sidechains which perform useful tasks like folding at home, or cracking codes, selling cloud storage, ect... all give subsidies with tx fees to the mainchain which provides security to them.

Other possibilities is that volume alone can provide network security - 500k a block x 1 penny per transaction = 5k usd a block in security

We don't need to throw away our core principles so quickly without trying creative solutions to solve these problems.

I previously considered an option that the network would be secured by competition for control (even with potential monetary losses), but was confronted with a notion that it was not economical. So I kept thinking.

I'm not advocating any further changes at this point, simply considering possibilities. The balance between tx fees and block subsidy is equivalent to that of economic activity versus saving. By totally getting rid of inflation we will have active economic participants carry the burden of securing the network, while savers would enjoy a free ride. The opposite is also true, thus balance needs to be sought.

I think being disinflationary is important for Bitcoin in order to gain adoption while contrasted by inflationary fiat, but once we are there, it's going to be up to the people to decide how to proceed further. The bigger the system gets the more difficult it is to push any changes. So alts might take some directions that Bitcoin would be unable to. Money is a dynamic essence, we should keep our eyes on this space and let our voices heard. Let the debates proceed .

PoW will be unlikely to ever be eliminated because of vested interests, so we may as well not waste each others time even considering switching bitcoin from PoW to PoS. Adding additional algos like TaPoS ontop of PoW is certainly possible and may even be carried out at the sidechain or wallet level.

Changing the 21 million limit while, hypothetically possible, should remain in the unanimous consent category as it is a fundamental economic principle behind bitcoin (being disinflationary vs inflationary) and would be unethical to betray the a majority or minority by stealing wealth from them through unforeseen inflation. We already have plenty of examples and choices with inflationary currencies, we are just asking for one disinflationary choice that does not betray the users in this economic experiment.

There are many other ways to pay or accomplish network security and the fact that you immediately are open to completely changing the economics of bitcoin without exploring the other options is frightening.

With this thread , changing the block size , while does have some unforeseen and unexplored economic consequences, doesn't change the core principle that bitcoin remains disinflationary.

I think the categorization of protocol changes above would need to be re-evaluated at some point. I believe that PoW scheme is more fundamental to Bitcoin, than any other aspect of the system, for those additional degrees-of-freedom it provides for the competition (this has been discussed a lot recently).

However, the block size limit, the tx fees structure and even the infamous 21m limit is where it gets interesting. These things are actually inter-related and not completely orthogonal. If it happens that fees are not able to provide enough incentives in the future to keep the network secure, then introduction of permanent limited inflation would be one of the options on the table, no matter how unpopular it might sound today.

Some balance would need to be found between the costs of transactions for active economic participants and Bitcoin's ability to maintain value throughout time for savers. The presence of other similar systems in the environment would not allow one system to swing too much in either direction. If transactions are too costly, another system with higher block subsidy will provide less friction for the commerce, if inflation is too high then another system will gain more traction as a store of value.

This will be very interesting to see unfolding and I would expect a lot more debates in the future for finding the right balance for Bitcoin. People will learn economics by working it out on a live system with their efforts rewarded in terms of growing adoption and increased monetary value. There will be winners, there will be losers, but everyone is given a chance to participate and make their choices, that's invaluable.

Did you even bother clicking on the link?

https://blockchain.info/charts/network-deficit?showDataPoints=true×pan=&daysAverageString=1&scale=0&address=

Clearly shows that Tx fee deficit is getting lower over time, which is exactly what we would want with block reward dropping due to disinflation.

This is all happening regardless of blocks being filled.


Seems like you are arguing on my behalf. How much will be needed to secure the network? Since ~6500usd per block secures the network now, wouldn't that indicate absurdly high Tx fees to match today's security once block rewards are finished?:

4,000 transactions per block  @ 1.63 usd tx fees  each(Full 1MB)

Where are you going to find millions of users willing to pay 1.63 per tx when much cheaper options are available?

You just contradicted yourself. First, you agreed with me that most are paying the Tx fee because it is forced on them by the client, than you are suggesting most aren't paying them today? (I'm going to assume you are being reasonable and not arguing against 4 pennies because the drop in BTC value, as a 2-3 penny Tx fee would equally apply to my argument)

Even if clients didn't have a default Tx set (which can be removed in many instances) they do this as a convenience to clients because the users would be pissed at having their transactions taking days to accomplish and promptly add the Tx back themselves.

I have provided some evidence to the table and still have yet to hear your evidence rather than vague allusions.

Answer this question please which you keep avoiding:
4,000 transactions per block  @ 40 pennies  each(Full 1MB)  vs   40,000 transactions per block @ 4 pennies each(half 20MB) = 20MB block equally secure or Insecure?