Topic: Fork off - page 6. (Read 37776 times)

It's not an assumption, it's the result of thinking and reasoning.
Also if you think bitcoin needs to be modified you're the one that has to construct a valid point.



That's because most clients force it on them.



Lol no, compare the tx fees to the current block rewards.



T'is in the blockchain baby.



Because people aren't even paying 4 cents today.

Any evidence to support this assumption?

Doesn't the data already indicate that most people pay the minimum Tx fee despite most blocks being unfilled? (They have a choice of paying nothing and waiting a couple days)

Doesn't the data reflect that Tx fees are starting to cover the costs to secure the network (now paid by interest through block rewards):
https://blockchain.info/charts/network-deficit?showDataPoints=true×pan=&daysAverageString=1&scale=0&address=

Despite fees getting cheaper and blocks not being filled.

Where is your evidence to suggest otherwise?

Why would you assume people would pay 40 cents per tx fee with a full block vs 4 cents with an half empty block?

 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?

Wouldn't they just not use bitcoin altogether if fees were that high? The data already shows resistance to 2-4 pennies in Tx fee's , where are you going to find the millions of users willing to pay 40 cents per Tx?

That's what I'm arguing.



More centralization, non-full blocks and therefore less fees, therefore less incentive to mine, therefore less secure network.



See above.



And with how things are today?



This man gets it.

I don't see anything within the hard fork which prevents using out-of-band or mesh networks to process Bitcoin transactions .

Yes, I like wikileaks.
Are you suggesting the existing payment mechanisms "work fine"?


140TPS is simply the first step to allow Bitcoin to scale.


Possibly, but what makes you think so?
 I.E..... 4,000 transactions per block  @ 40 pennies each(Full 1MB)  vs   80,000 transactions per block @ 2 pennies each(Full 20MB) = 20MB block equally secure or Insecure?

 I.E..... 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?

The reward to secure the network will shortly be dropping to 12.5 BTC . If Bitcoins disinflationary nature keeps pace and bitcoin value increases proportionally there will be no need to rely upon Tx fees to secure the network. Otherwise, wouldn't many low fee transactions be more realistically filled than fewer costly transactions? If people are already trying to avoid 2-4 penny fees with off the chain solutions, why would Bitcoin stand a chance at being viable with 40 cent transaction fees where there are competitor alts with much less fees and much less overhead?

The introduction of sidechains will increase the amount of mainchain transactions, not decrease them.

If it's not broken, don't fix it.

1)  If internet infrastructure providers are instructed to attack P2P traffic as a condition of their being allowed to operate and under the guise of protection against crime, terrorism, or disruption of monetary systems, then there is a distinct correlation between the transaction rate and the ability of Bitcoin to function under such constraints.  At 7 TPS it is not impossible that Bitcoin could continue to function using such methods as steganography and out-of-band networks.  Bitcoin enjoys value in part because it has some theoretical potential to survive a dedicated and forceful attack, and I absolutely don't rule out the potential for such a thing as we move into the future (which is heavily postulated to involve a 'cyber 9/11 event.')

2)  Bitcoin appealed to me in the first place for it's corner-case and unique ability to allow me to support Wikileaks.  I appreciate Wikileaks for the service it is providing to my country (the U.S.)  I am perfectly happy to pay high fees for a solution which provides capabilities which I cannot find elsewhere.  For 99% of what I do existing solutions work fine (and vastly better than Bitcoin) and I'll continue to use them.

3)  At 140 TPS Bitcoin is still just a corner-case monetary network.  It is woefully short of being some sort of global exchange currency.  Bumping up to this rate will simply make the solution less defensible for no particular gain.

4)  The monetary inducement to provide decentralized mining support will not change no matter what the transaction rate or fee structure.  It will always approach zero and will likely dip below.  So, here again, bumping up the rate to 140 TPS serves no purpose other than to further consolidate support to a small group of large players who can subsidize their costs with other revenue streams.

5)  A much better solution for everyone is to scale by use of sidechains.  Economically due to the two-way-peg it will not impact Bitcoin's money supply and will promote higher fees since much activity is distilled into fewer reserve transactions.  Further, sidechain efforts will have incentive to support native Bitcoin since it is key to their function as well as to their value store.  Users benefit by having a variety of options, many of the options being mutually exclusive.  They will also foster increased privacy and be more challenging to attack (being a swarm and generally much more flexible and developmentally agile.)

Davout and Daniel P Barron,
My main hope is that Bitcoin can serve as the world's monetary foundation akin to digital gold. I suspect that you too believe that this is the true purpose of Bitcoin as opposed to the 'frictionless payement system' (FPS) that many here seem to hope for.

My questions to you are:
Are these two visions (digital gold vs. FPS) mutually exclusive?
How exactly does increasing block size lead to a less secure network?
Would an increase in block size make Bitcoin more susceptible to attacks or control by governments?

Thanks.

Yes. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Prohibited_changes

Require unanimous consent

These changes require the consent of every bitcoin-holder:

    Increasing the total number of issued bitcoins beyond 21 million. Precision may be increased, but proportions must be unchanged.
    Any rule that adds required, explicit centralization. For example, a change requiring that all blocks be signed by some central organization.
    Demurrage (deletion or reassignment of coins judged to be "lost" or "unused"). This is highly controversial in the context of currency units; on the other hand it is absolutely essential for namespace entries like [Namecoin] (which implements Demurrage for namespace entries but not for currency units).\

I would also add 2 more aspects that should be classified under "Require unanimous consent":

1) Anything that harms fungibility such as reversible blockchain transactions or blacklisting.
2) Explicitly weakening the inherent pseudo-anonymity of bitcoin where individuals aren't empowered to choose their degree of transparency vs privacy

Require miner consensus

    Changing the bitcoin distribution algorithm such that the subsidy at any given time period is decreased without miner consensus and 3 years notice, or increased beyond improved precision of halving (lossy beginning with block 1,890,000).

Disputed

    Adding alternatives to Proof of Work such as Proof of Stake. This could change core bitcoin too much, but with widespread agreement of some sort might be possible.

------------------------------------------

This hardfork to adjust block size is categorically in the 2nd section requiring miner and full node agreement with a slow and careful roll-out and trying to reach consensus by the community first and allowing them to address their concerns.

After pondering this a bit more, I think that agreeing on some economical aspects of the protocol in the future is exactly what Bitcoin is for. It gets people to talk, to become participative in decision making with their actions, something that our society mostly lacks today.

Bitcoin is an icebreaker, that teaches us how to solve world problems in a distributed way without delegating our decision making to other people. Forking the protocol is a good example, we are just testing the water here. I appreciate the fact, that opposition to the fork is persistent and articulate, though this time around it would seem that increasing of the block limit is a natural evolution of the system.

Rather than make a point by point rebuttal with all that I disagree (and agree with) let me distill the crux of your argument and address it.

From what I understand your argument is as follows:

Bitcoin is akin to digital gold and which was never intended to support "blockchain 1.5/2.0" technologies , be used for micro-transactions , or scale to be a universal payment mechanism and currency for the whole world. You would prefer that people used the right tool for the right job and be dependent upon multiple types of payment mechanisms to conduct their everyday affairs. The best way we can secure the blockchain is by insuring full block sizes, thus insuring that not only the quantity of minted coins are scarce but the allotment of transaction speed and/or availability is scarce.

Please correct any of the above if I am mischaracterizing your position.

Here are the questions and concerns that would come to mind with your argument:

1) Would you not be concerned another alt which was flexible enough to efficiently handle all types of transactions would make Bitcoin obsolete as it is both inconvenient to carry around multiple forms of payment everywhere or if the alt can perform the same function of Bitcoin for a much lower Tx fee?

2) Are you suggesting full blocks bringing scarcity was Satoshi's original intention or merely arguing that filling all blocks is the best way to secure the blockchain?

3) How have you determined that a smaller amount of transactions per block (but fuller blocks ) at higher fees brings higher security than a high amount of transactions per less filled blocks with lower fees?
 I.E..... 4,000 transactions per block  @ 40 pennies each(Full 1MB)  vs   80,000 transactions per block @ 2 pennies each(Full 20MB) = 20MB block equally secure or Insecure?

 I.E..... 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?

4) Are you suggesting bitcoins lack of utility to be a one size fits all tool will give it more value?

5) Do you acknowledge that TPS scarcity due to full blocks will ultimately introduce competitive and floating tx fees based upon S/D? Do you believe a constantly changing Tx fee is a good thing for bitcoin?

^ +1

Bitcoin also has a competitor in a form of teleportable silver, which has 4x transaction capacity and competes with the former on distribution, though lacks somewhat in merchant adoption.

If Bitcoin isn't allowed to scale, the momentum will start shifting away from it at some point.

It is safe to increase the block limit now while subsidy is still substantial and there is a lot of potential for growth, though an equilibrium would need to be found later once adoption saturates.

Small blocks do not make Bitcoin scarce, small blocks make Bitcoin impotent. Size matters. Low transaction count means Bitcoin can't spread itself around. You know what I mean, ladies.

Let's break it down.


My pleasure. You took the time to read, I'll take the time to answer.

The main point is, as you've probably noticed, that blocks have to be full.
That's simply because if a resource isn't scarce you cannot have a market for it, pretty much for the exact same reason that you couldn't have a lemonade stand next to a lemonade river.


That's cool but that's not happening, Bitcoin is extremely inefficient for this.
Trying to create some universal one-size-fits-all solution for vastly different things is exactly how you end up with bloated shit nobody wants to use.
Sure XML can do more than JSON. Yet guess what...



The market has no way to force a price on me since the blocks aren't full.
You have to get used to it, eventually the transactions will cost money. Money that comes out of your pocket.
Right now the "free" transaction I'm making is pretty much subsidized by current and future miners, as they're bearing its verification and storage costs.



It's not a "premise" it is a fact. Look at the numbers, look at the block reward/fees ratio for current blocks.
At some point, if Bitcoin is to remain secure, fees *have* to take over, and right now the hard data shows that fees are ridiculously low.



Where and when is it said that Bitcoin's purpose is to *only* use Bitcoin?
It is said nowhere, because that is stupid.
If you need to screw a screw and hammer a nail, you get a screwdriver and a hammer. You don't try to design, for some misplaced ideological reasons, a shitty tool that's a screwdriver on one end and a hammer on the other, for a hammer and a screwdriver both need a firm grip on their handle.



You're more than welcome to make Bitcoin more convenient by building on top of it.
However, if you really must insist that the core protocol be hard-forked you're in for a lot of pain.
I'm not getting on-chain changetip forced on me. No. fucking. way. Who's going to be able to run a full node once we have to store every redditard's fraction of cent bouncing around? And you say you're against centralization? Srsly.



For some odd reason I'm unable to picture some hypothetic economic actor that somehow has enough property to want it protected in the holy blockchain but too poor or not smart enough to realize that "If you won't pay for nice things you can't have nice things because there can't be nice things."



No man, use whatever floats your boat!
There's also no code protectionism, I'm not extremely attached to the code that's been shat by the kowr devz, that gave us the infamously unexpected march 2013 hardfork and the no less lulzy "pls to not update openssl because reasons".



I have no problem with some people not being able to afford Bitcoin.
For the data regarding fees being the key to security, and their current relative absence see my previous replies.



I don't make that assumption. Sure Bitcoin competes with other payment means, so what?
If people want to pay for their starbucks they'll pick the correct tool for the job and will probably end up not using Bitcoin for that particular purpose.
Gold isn't less valuable because you can't use it at McDonalds, no?



You misunderstand what he's saying, not that he's right anyway.


We were given teleportable gold that also happens to be invisible for fuck's sake, that has incredible value in itself, it's neither necessary, nor - for all the reasons exposed - desirable, that it also doubles as a pay-your-parking-ticket-on-the-blockchain dumbed-down version.

Thank you.

My Thoughts:



Filling the blocks to maximum capacity isn't ideal and will allow unstable confirmation times and radically variable Tx fees depending upon the constantly changing supply and demand of available Tx capacity. This have many negative consequences.


I disagree , I want the option for buying a cup of coffee on the chain , your proposal would force me to use centralized, off the chain solutions.


Why? Shouldn't the market determine what is possible and not?


I disagree on your premise about fees being too low . Consumers are already being driven to off the chain, centralized solutions to avoid the 3-5 penny Tx fee, I would like to encourage decentralization and bring fees much lower. What do you consider a reasonable transaction fee?


They aren't evil , but without increasing TPS we will mostly be forced to use these centralized off the chain solutions and therefore defeat the whole Raison d'être of bitcoin.



So are you opposed to those of us trying to make Bitcoin more convenient?


How is that mutually exclusive with convenience? I want Bitcoin to be more convenient so more people have the ability to protect their property.


So now you want us to be forced to use 2 currencies and download 2 blockchains? What is with this sacred code protectionism as well? Over 70% of satoshi's code has been modified already.


You keep stressing the need for full blocks being necessary(ignoring the negative ramifications of running continuously at or near full capacity.)
Do you have any evidence reflecting full blocks being the key answer to securing the protocol in the future?


You are assuming bitcoin doesn't compete with other payment mechanisms and people will be forced to pay ridiculous Tx fees. Why would you make this assumption?


Exactly. Now you just created Gov-coin or corp-coin. Why would we want this?

Or, more likely, your real concern is that you suspect you're in the minority, so you have to try to discredit the fork in every way you can think of.  You need to convince end-users, miners, exchange operators, merchant/payment processors and web wallet providers to join you to make the old chain sustainable.  Consensus is king and you aren't confident you're going to get it, hence the aggressive, fear-mongering tone all your posts convey.  You're afraid and lashing out.  Most people are taking a moderate wait-and-see approach, but that isn't an option if you think your preferred chain won't get the support it needs to survive.  You need to go on the attack to try and change people's minds and that's what you'll keep doing for the rest of this thread.



Call me skeptical, but I don't get the impression you have anyone's interests at heart but your own (and Mircea's, seeing as you can only link to things he contributes to).  Consider me "warned".  

Be my guest, yo.

IMHO, Gavin has done more harm to bitcoin that help. He crashed the price by pumping it up way too soon.

Gavin isn't "allowing" anything; this is all a big show for nothing. This is his last hurrah as a power-ranger. His last big "look at me I'm still important" moment. Why do you guys hold him in such high regard? If you look at his contributions to bitcoin, you'd realize he is more of a parasite than a leader. The same goes for derpanopolus and every other celebritarian that floats by the front page of reddit. If I had to venture a guess, I'd say it's because most of you can't actually afford to speculate on a long-term investment. Hucksters like Buterin and Taaki come along to delight you with tales of "blockchain technologies," reassuring the maliciously stupid that they don't need to actually invest in anything; their ideas and feelings are what's valuable, and that's not for sale! That's why it's always "the community" this, and "mass adoption" that: bitcoin is your social club; you're just in it for hooking up. Meanwhile, actual people actually care about bitcoin, and they ain't forkin' it.

There have been some tremendous changes to the core and big things on the horizon that will shortly be released like impulse which allows payment channels to perform secured instant confirmations(no ~10 min block conf. waits) http://impulse.is/impulse.pdf with all wallets.

This issue shouldn't be rushed and Gavin is doing the right thing by allowing critics time to point out weaknesses and the community to come to consensus.

If you cannot wait a couple more months for this hardfork to be implemented I suggest you sell all your BTC and invest in an unsecured and unstable alt with 1-3 devs that can push buggy code onto the users without a proper development and peer review process.

 P.S. concerning a few other members posting in this thread- When people cannot make a coherent and reasonable argument and have to rely ad hominems and pointless emotional ramblings that fail to complete a thought, I will simply ignore them as we should all strive to raise our standards. This does not indicate that I suggest people ignore others they disagree with or even dislike, but merely identify those that don't meet the minimum criteria of being capable of a valid conversation.

From all others, I am interested to hear clear and reasoned arguments against Gavin's Hardfork scalability road map.

You have a peculiar definition of "settled".  If the fork happens and we see which chain gets more support, that's when it's settled.  Until then, it's a discussion and all you can do is speculate (and have a surprisingly lofty opinion of yourself, it seems).