Topic: Gavin to Satoshi, 2010 -- "SOMEBODY will try to mess up the network (...)" (Read 3759 times)

many of the biggest coin exchangers and payment process already expressed support for bigger blocks so we will see
what they do if/when BU activates.

Here's further exposing of Gavin in pre-CIA times, talking about the evils that he is now promoting, and pointing out how merchants and nodes control bitcoin, not Jihan Wu's monopoly:


Replace "50-coiners" with BUcoiners and 25-coin with Core. There you have it.

Check the tweets here too:

https://medium.com/@WhalePanda/how-bitcoin-unlimited-btu-will-be-erased-169977ecb3bb#.8lzo1psxc

Get ready to dump BUcoin and double your BTC stack if the unfortunate event happens.

...the majority of which isn't code in the software, but external testing code that's not a part of Bitcoin itself


Are you suggesting that diligent testing code is somehow irresponsible? Your presentation of the facts is selective, and irresponsible

Once again, this is similar to calling linux developers idiots because most people use Windows.

BU is a fork of bitcoin core 0.12.x code, as an analogy, it shares the same kernel. If BU was to gain acceptance, it is likely the case that many knowledgeable and intelligent people would get involved.

Also you have to consider the attitude that some people think about old UTXO's, if you are concerned about the security of your wealth.

And there is nothing conservative about segwit. It is a massive code change, and a radical change to the network topology of bitcoin.

One should make things as simple as possible, but not simpler (A. Einstein).

If the reader's attention span is limited, then probably the arguments are too complicated for the reader too.

I don't know the details of BU.  I don't think BU is meant to be used, just to block off segwit.  I think nothing will happen, if my understanding of things is correct: the 1MB blocks are frozen in, until bitcoin is centralized enough for a central authority to decide otherwise (say, a cartel of miners).

If there was a real way to have a flexible block size I would support it, but the reality of things here is, nobody can trust BU, it's going to be a disaster, it just doesn't work.

The conservative approach of the Core devs is what's making the base of bitcoin solid, BU devs will guarantee my wealth is is not there in the long term because they will fuck up in the process.

When I talk about institutional players using bitcoin as a reserve currency, I don't mean traditional banks necessarily.  I mean, things like exchanges, online casinos, and many new non-regulated financial speculation agents.  There is no reason why the regulated financial world would use bitcoin.  It is mostly in those cases where non-regulated, badly regulated situations occur where a reserve currency can be used as a collateral (and not legal procedures, central banks and so on) that bitcoin has an advantage.


I agree with you.  But it will be a reserve currency for those (big) things where regulation is too difficult, impossible etc... I'm not saying that regular banks might not get involved.  But it will not be their main business.  But you could think of "banking in lawless environments, in war environments etc...".  Banking in, say, Zimbabwe is maybe easier done with bitcoin as a reserve currency, than with whatever doubtful legal system over there.  So maybe a big bank will not trust to open offices using Zimbabwe's legal system, and prefers using bitcoin as a reserve currency.  But between a bank in London and one in New York, they most probably won't use bitcoin (unless they want to do something undercover).

Look, I present arguments.  You present insinuations, intention trials and so on, but apart from adhering to the group think dictated by some high priests, visibly there's not much of an argument.

My claims are these:
- consensus is best defined as the (a priori remarkable) phenomenon that many independent, non-hierarchically related entities use the same protocol, and use the same data set ; and the related property that this rule set and data set doesn't change over time: immutability.

- that this consensus and immutability phenomenon comes about by the fact that there are so many antagonists that it is not possible to find any agreement over any change that would bring advantage to some, and disadvantage to others.  So essentially, it is the fact that many antagonists disagree over change, that change doesn't happen, and that immutability occurs.  This does not apply to economically neutral aspects of the protocol where nobody has any advantage or disadvantage, but only applies to "economic" aspects.

- that in a proof of work consensus system, those delivering proof of work (the miners) are the "servers of block chain and of protocol", and the users are the "clients of block chain and protocol", who provide transaction data to the servers (miners) and decide to "vote in the market" over the token (crypto currency) at hand.  Important clients in this respect are exchanges.

- that the exact way in which the servers (miners) communicate their block chain to the users, and the exact way in which the users communicate their transactions to the miners, doesn't really matter as long as there is good network connectivity, and that hence the distributed network of nodes that makes these miners communicate their block chain to the users, and the users their transactions to the miners, is of very secondary importance.

My illustrations are:

- the ETC/ETH split

- the fact that if nodes had power, then a sybil attack on the number of nodes would be extremely easy to exercise.

And that capacity is not enough to compete with the SWIFT settlement network. Not to mention users want timely settlement so that they can go home and see their kids before they go to bed.

GBP was once the reserve currency. Now it is USD. BTC may now be the reserve currency in the crypto world, but that could change. I doubt that it could ever surpass the USD as a reserve currency.

The market already chooses, just without an algorithm governing the so-called "choice"


All the algorithmic re-sizing proposals come with a cap anyway. Hence, they're waste of time; it's far easier just to use the cap and allow actual market driven dynamics choose how much of that space to fill, algorithmic resizing simply creates soft limits to stymie market dynamics from actually determining the blocksize


Can you reply without making it inpenetrably overlong, please

You are perfectly right that block chain tech doesn't scale well.  However, there is a difference between putting in an artificial scarcity parameter, and having a real market determine when the resource cost of the scaling needs to be compensated by fees.

You do not agree, but it is a very simple fact that non-mining nodes have nothing to do with the decentralisation of bitcoin.  The only thing that counts is that respect is the decentralisation of proof of work deciders (mining pools), which is at this moment an oligarchy.  So bitcoin is on the brink of being centralized in any case, and the "node network" has absolutely no power to counter that, no matter how many blindspots you have there.  

If bitcoin had a free block size, or an automatically adapting block size, it would be able to cope with adoption up to the point of technical limits, essentially given by network capacity between mining pools (we really, really don't care about nodes) and their server capacity towards user wallets.  The loon guy wanting to check the block chain for himself can buy enough storage to verify the Peta-byte size block chain if he wants to.  But that doesn't matter.  To give you an idea, I buy now 1TB disks for less money than I bought 1 GB disks in the 1990-ies.  So PB size storage is probably not going to be a problem 20 years from now.  My internet link went up also by more than a factor 1000.  So downloading a PB block size during a week is going to be just as fine as downloading a TB size block chain right now.  So the scalability is limited by technology, but technology is improving. 

But now that bitcoin has a protocol built-in block size of 1MB, it is for ever limited to 2-3 transactions a second, which means that bitcoin can only be a reserve currency.

Maybe a lightning network by banks will be built on top of it. But it will be like normal banking, where normal people will have a bank account, and the bank will use bitcoin to settle with other banks.  Those banks are nothing else but lightning hubs, using bitcoin as a reserve currency (and going for fractional reserve banking, IOU, and all that, like normal banking).

But what is sure, is that bitcoin will not be used any more directly by normal users for normal transactions, as a currency.  That epoch is closing with the 1 MB limit.

Yes.  Now suppose that it gets 80% of the market cap.  Because that is what was the case with ethereum: the FORKED protocol (ETH) got 90% of the market cap while the original chain remained with 10% (ETC).

What's the problem ?

Branding ?  The name "bitcoin" ?  What coin are they going to call "bitcoin": the one with 90% market cap, or the one with 10% market cap ?

If there is ever a "morality", they would change BOTH names: bitcoin-core and bitcoin-U or something.

But I don't think it will happen, until the "branding" of bitcoin is eroded, that is, when bitcoin will have lost its first mover advantage.

I'm sorry, but my ubuntu node updated automatically the bitcoin wallet.

Relevance?