Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 195.

TPTB_need_war

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 262

Quote from: cypherdoc on June 23, 2015, 07:08:21 PM

part of the reason ppl like Carlton think i'm over the top in this block size debate is that they don't realize i predicted a conflict like this would arise back in October when Blockstream first announced themselves and published their whitepaper. i said then that SC's were a financial conflict and that other changes to Bitcoin Core could also be shelved that might compete with SC's. of course, at the time, i couldn't have imagined exactly what that exact conflict would be. turns out it is now the block size limit. and it might be just the first thing. tomorrow it could be something else that doesn't get developed that competes with SC's.

as a result of feeling i've been proven correct in my suspicions, yes, i have been vocal about supporting Gavin's changes. especially since Gavin isn't confrontational and stays in the background while the Blockstream guys have been out in force. i think he's on the correct path, has a good plan, and does not have a financial conflict. yes, i trust Gavin way more than the other guys and it amazes me that ppl think he is plotting anything. i'm convinced the major players such as exchanges, merchants, and others have gone to him to ask for the block size increase to increase user adoption. it only makes sense that they would want growth.

That is reasonable explanation.

And I also noted the conflict of interest upthread.

However, some facts:

1) Bitcoin Core can't scale decentralized unless we scrap the entire consensus network design. Patches like IBLT are just distributed centralization.

2) Blockstream's pegged BTC side chains can't be stopped because they have already implemented the alpha on the test bed with federated servers.

So thus you have to present a cogent argument for how YOU or exponential block size scaling are accomplishing anything good.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

growth, esp that of smartphones, is all part of the future:

http://ben-evans.com/benedictevans/2015/6/19/presentation-mobile-is-eating-the-world

Peter R

legendary

Activity: 1162

Merit: 1007

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on June 23, 2015, 07:06:45 PM

Quote from: Peter R on June 23, 2015, 07:03:52 PM

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on June 23, 2015, 06:58:27 PM

Quote from: Peter R on June 23, 2015, 06:55:48 PM

Even if there were only 10 miners in the world, as long as:

Sorry to now say that makes you a certified idiot. I've lost the respect I had for you. You appear to be an engineer with a calculator in your pocket who is clueless about society.

An engineer with no perspective is very dangerous.

https://twitter.com/NickSzabo4/status/610654279775461376

He is saying that 9 decentralized nodes are better 10,000 nodes which are run by 1 node.

He is saying nothing about the virtues of a network with 9 nodes.

Duh.

How many nodes and miners do you think we need to be decentralized and why?

What does the word "decentralized" mean to you?

How would you measure the network's degree of decentralization?

TPTB_need_war

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 262

Quote from: tvbcof on June 23, 2015, 07:06:09 PM

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on June 23, 2015, 06:41:17 PM

Quote from: tvbcof on June 23, 2015, 02:08:56 AM

cypherdoc changed his mind because Gavin did presumably. Gavin did because it was easier to do this as quitely as possible than to try to change the laws of arithmetic.

Both of them know that it's the exponential growth that is the critical element here since it is pretty certain to sink Bitcoin eventually. (Actually, cypherdoc may or may not know that or may or may not care much if he can make a buck in the interim.)

Quite clever wasn't it to start with 20MB then appear to compromise with some bloc of obscure "Chinese miners" who want 8MB and quietly slip in the exponential scaling.

The hypothesis that Gavin simply fucked up the argument+ arithmetic seems stronger to me. He seems to be the best bet as 'benevolent dictator' since Hearn has burnt way to many bridges. It wouldn't do to have the main man be so incompetent if it were a concocted plan.

Disarm the smartest ones by making it appear you are incompetent.

Gavin was perhaps planted by the DEEP STATE that created Bitcoin. He may be a CIA agent (and not even know it!).

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

part of the reason ppl like Carlton think i'm over the top in this block size debate is that they don't realize i predicted a conflict like this would arise back in October when Blockstream first announced themselves and published their whitepaper. i said then that SC's were a financial conflict and that other changes to Bitcoin Core could also be shelved that might compete with SC's. of course, at the time, i couldn't have imagined exactly what that exact conflict would be. turns out it is now the block size limit. and it might be just the first thing. tomorrow it could be something else that doesn't get developed that competes with SC's.

as a result of feeling i've been proven correct in my suspicions, yes, i have been vocal about supporting Gavin's changes. especially since Gavin isn't confrontational and stays in the background while the Blockstream guys have been out in force. i think he's on the correct path, has a good plan, and does not have a financial conflict. yes, i trust Gavin way more than the other guys and it amazes me that ppl think he is plotting anything. i'm convinced the major players such as exchanges, merchants, and others have gone to him to ask for the block size increase to increase user adoption. it only makes sense that they would want growth.

TPTB_need_war

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 262

Quote from: Peter R on June 23, 2015, 07:03:52 PM

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on June 23, 2015, 06:58:27 PM

Quote from: Peter R on June 23, 2015, 06:55:48 PM

Even if there were only 10 miners in the world, as long as:

Sorry to now say that makes you a certified idiot. I've lost the respect I had for you. You appear to be an engineer with a calculator in your pocket who is clueless about society.

An engineer with no perspective is very dangerous.

https://twitter.com/NickSzabo4/status/610654279775461376

He is saying that 9 decentralized nodes are better 10,000 nodes which are run by 1 node.

He is saying nothing about the virtues of a network with 9 nodes.

Duh.

tvbcof

legendary

Activity: 4690

Merit: 1276

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on June 23, 2015, 06:41:17 PM

Quote from: tvbcof on June 23, 2015, 02:08:56 AM

cypherdoc changed his mind because Gavin did presumably. Gavin did because it was easier to do this as quitely as possible than to try to change the laws of arithmetic.

Both of them know that it's the exponential growth that is the critical element here since it is pretty certain to sink Bitcoin eventually. (Actually, cypherdoc may or may not know that or may or may not care much if he can make a buck in the interim.)

Quite clever wasn't it to start with 20MB then appear to compromise with some bloc of obscure "Chinese miners" who want 8MB and quietly slip in the exponential scaling.

The hypothesis that Gavin simply fucked up the argument+ arithmetic seems stronger to me. He seems to be the best bet as 'benevolent dictator' since Hearn has burnt way to many bridges. It wouldn't do to have the main man be so incompetent if it were a concocted plan.

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on June 23, 2015, 06:41:17 PM

Rothschilds (and the CIA) would be proud of the deception.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/editor-of-major-german-newspaper-says-he-planted-stories-for-the-cia/5429324

USG has no power abroad Huh

Huh? The idea that the CIA performs a variety of psychological operations abroad isn't even a conspiracy. It is known that they have not only the authority but a charter to do this and have been at it for many decades. They brag about it for Christsake!

What they didn't have the legal authority to do until 2013 (due to the national defense authorization act of 2012) was to directly target the domestic population. One of the many work-arounds was to plant stories in overseas media expecting it to be picked up domestically. Again, this happened for many decades and it was never a great secret.

Interesting that some really fishy things started popping up here in the good-ole U.S.A, after 2012. Among them the Boston bombing, Sandy Hook, Bundy ranch. The more one looks into some of them the fishier they seem. Not saying anything...just saying...

Peter R

legendary

Activity: 1162

Merit: 1007

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on June 23, 2015, 06:58:27 PM

Quote from: Peter R on June 23, 2015, 06:55:48 PM

Even if there were only 10 miners in the world, as long as:

Sorry to now say that makes you a certified idiot. I've lost the respect I had for you. You appear to be an engineer with a calculator in your pocket who is clueless about society.

An engineer with no perspective is very dangerous.

https://twitter.com/NickSzabo4/status/610654279775461376

pleaseexplainagain

member

Activity: 115

Merit: 10

Quote from: cypherdoc on June 23, 2015, 06:46:04 PM

Quote from: BitcoinIsLiberty on June 23, 2015, 06:27:09 PM

Perhaps the bitcoin economy has matured enough that a set max block size is not actually needed anymore?!

What if we had some type of patch that eliminated "silly sized blocks" and allowed miners to set any soft limit they want? Have it something like: allow any size as long as it's not more than x3 (or other number) the previous months average block size.

Market incentives will drive each mining pools soft limits. Increasing the limits will stimulate growth (increase centralization if done too fast compared to technology because of resources needed) while smaller blocks will increase fees. Some may like smaller blocks because of risk of orphans while others will want large blocks to grow the user base of people using bitcoins. Allowing a x3 size block means that as long as a minority are making small blocks, those who want larger ones can still help grow the "silly size" limit and those who have weak internet connections just have to download the blocks and can continue making small ones.

A spam attacker could only create large blocks that were bigger than all the pools soft limits only by mining it himself and the largest block he could create would be a x3 of the blocks on the system. And just like it's in their economic self interest to not get bigger than 51% it would also be in pools own self interest to not have a soft limit that would risk too much centralization of the system by making it too large for current technology and allows for the system to rapidly adapt at the time. The fact that most mining is done by pools means that the soft limit can be more fluid.

Ultimately if we let pools set any limit they want would they set limits that would allow bitcoin to thrive? If we assume the majority of pools act in the interest of a growing decentralized system would max block size be needed anymore other than something to prevent a "silly size" block?

That's my ultimate vote; no block size limit.

I also agree and think it fits the original satoshi idea - let the market decide but set some bound to stop accidental or deliberate ruining of the system (here 'silly sized' blocks)

Adrian-x

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000

Quote from: BitcoinIsLiberty on June 23, 2015, 06:27:09 PM

Perhaps the bitcoin economy has matured enough that a set max block size is not actually needed anymore?!

What if we had some type of patch that eliminated "silly sized blocks" and allowed miners to set any soft limit they want? Have it something like: allow any size as long as it's not more than x3 (or other number) the previous months average block size.

Market incentives will drive each mining pools soft limits. Increasing the limits will stimulate growth (increase centralization if done too fast compared to technology because of resources needed) while smaller blocks will increase fees. Some may like smaller blocks because of risk of orphans while others will want large blocks to grow the user base of people using bitcoins. Allowing a x3 size block means that as long as a minority are making small blocks, those who want larger ones can still help grow the "silly size" limit and those who have weak internet connections just have to download the blocks and can continue making small ones.

A spam attacker could only create large blocks that were bigger than all the pools soft limits only by mining it himself and the largest block he could create would be a x3 of the blocks on the system. And just like it's in their economic self interest to not get bigger than 51% it would also be in pools own self interest to not have a soft limit that would risk too much centralization of the system by making it too large for current technology and allows for the system to rapidly adapt at the time. The fact that most mining is done by pools means that the soft limit can be more fluid.

Ultimately if we let pools set any limit they want would they set limits that would allow bitcoin to thrive? If we assume the majority of pools act in the interest of a growing decentralized system would max block size be needed anymore other than something to prevent a "silly size" block?

this is the conclusion I've been waiting for people to come to.

I dont think it will happen, and that means I have to watch my BTC like a Hawk. Undecided

TPTB_need_war

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 262

Quote from: Peter R on June 23, 2015, 06:55:48 PM

Even if there were only 10 miners in the world, as long as:

Sorry to now say that makes you a certified idiot. I've lost the respect I had for you. You appear to be an engineer with a calculator in your pocket who is clueless about society.

An engineer with no perspective is very dangerous.

Quote from: Peter R on June 23, 2015, 06:55:48 PM

- the system remains open such that if I feel really really strongly about it, that I can run a node and mine too

You wouldn't have enough hashrate to have any impact against a network with only 10 miners. Duh.

Peter R

legendary

Activity: 1162

Merit: 1007

Quote from: Carlton Banks on June 23, 2015, 06:44:30 PM

I will refine the question: do you think bitcoin scales up to it's widest potential user base (everyone) using only block size increases, and remain peer to peer? We're all aware that's not possible, no?

Yes, I think bitcoin can scale to an enormous user base and remain decentralized using only blocksize increases. No, I do not think typical users will want to run full nodes in this case. Yes, I think users will still have access to the blockchain.

This might be contentious, but I don't think we need a lot of nodes for bitcoin to remain decentralized. Even if there were only 10 miners in the world, as long as:

- the miners are in different legal jurisdictions and run by people of different political views, and

- the system remains open such that if I feel really really strongly about it, that I can run a node and mine too

then I think Bitcoin will remain decentralized and be vastly better than the present monetary system.

(For the record, I do not want nor expect there only to be 10 miners running full nodes in the future. I suspect there will be much more.)

Adrian-x

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Carlton Banks on June 23, 2015, 06:13:45 PM

Quote from: Adrian-x on June 23, 2015, 05:57:21 PM

Quote from: Carlton Banks on June 23, 2015, 04:48:17 PM

Quote from: NewLiberty on June 23, 2015, 04:37:14 PM

Quote from: Carlton Banks on June 23, 2015, 11:21:56 AM

Quote from: thezerg on June 23, 2015, 11:19:02 AM

But polls show that Gavin has a clear majority... its just certain core devs who object and not on technical grounds. And most of them are working for a single organization. How is that "hectoring a community"?

It isn't. Who said that?

There is a difference between "we need a hard fork to increase the block size" and "Gavin's plan is the way to do it, (which ever plan he settles upon)"

Most all the devs want a hard fork to increase block size. Very few are on board with Gavin's plan.
Anyhow, it looks like the Bitcoin Core hard fork will be more likely to progress from gmaxwell's BIP, and the XT fork from Gavins perhaps.
They may remain compatible until there is a block that one would process and the other wouldn't.

You can include me in that contingent: we do need a hard fork to increase the block size (and only for what that will achieve, buying time). Very few people are debating that now, and I myself have been aware of the scalability issue for almost as long as I've been interested in bitcoin.

Re: which designs will be implemented on which fork; I thought Gavin had decided against the hostile fork?

the use of the term hostile is propaganda.

its not hostile, it's only hostile if you are feeling threatened like maybe the majority of Core developer working on another another hard fork and want to leverage block size increase with your proposed improvements.

Telling the entire core dev team, the commercial bitcoin players and the bitcoin user community that if they didn't like it, they were powerless to stop him? This is friendly gesture in your eyes?

I'm not even being rhetorical using the word "hostile", Gavin and Mike's attitude was exactly that: hostile.

I dont see it like that, I see Gmaxwell plowing ahead with his SideChains with full intent to implement the change to Bitcoin regardless of introducing new protocol intensives to take transactions off chain and the resulting economic consequence, this very action is a hostile takeover by Blockstream.

that said, it's always been that no one can force users to use a modified version of Bitcoin if development becomes centralized, saying "it'll never happen it's oven-source, we'll just fork the code". well its now centralized, Gmaxwell has been very vocal in promoting the fact that Gavin has no voice in the development of Bitcoin and is in the minority, and is quick to say he is not a Lead Developer, while technical true, he has taken on a self proclaimed role of Lead Scientist, in my view a more general and holistic vantage point.

there is lots of misinformation out there, and I don't see the masses getting involved in this debate, just looking at the pols people keep talking about, there are at most a few 100 or so voters, while Coinbase boast over 3M individual wallets that's a lot of early adopters invested in Bitcoin - ( i imagine that is 1 or 2 wallets per user) and we are not seeing them push for the changes.

at the end of the day Bitcoin incentives are driven by the economic majority, not a centralized core group, the economic majority will promote the incentive sachems that are the most beneficial to the largest audience to maximize there return. even miners shouldn't be have a voice like they do in this debate.

TPTB_need_war

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 262

Quote from: cypherdoc on June 23, 2015, 06:46:04 PM

That's my ultimate vote; no block size limit.

Then you hand Bitcoin Core to Circle, Coinbase, Paylay, etc which will flood it with micropayments to force the mining onto (perhaps Google's) powerful servers.

If you argue IBLT is a solution, it would just force the smaller nodes to let the powerful nodes do the transaction verification and censorship.

TPTB_need_war

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 262

Quote from: Zarathustra on June 23, 2015, 02:55:13 AM

Quote from: ?? on ??

Nope, it is confirmed there is no global elite.

http://armstrongeconomics.com/archives/33771

Whether the society and its elite is national or international or both is irrelevant. Relevant is: Do you promote the society (collectivism/paternalism) or the community (anarchy, self-sufficiency).

I promote the local and global community with my cryptocoin (and other technology) work and my concept of the coming Knowledge Age. But for you this must be absolute and preclude knowledge sharing in a "global community of exchange / sharing". The latter part is where we differ and you are all tied up into your Mathusianism which clouds your vision.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: BitcoinIsLiberty on June 23, 2015, 06:27:09 PM

Perhaps the bitcoin economy has matured enough that a set max block size is not actually needed anymore?!

What if we had some type of patch that eliminated "silly sized blocks" and allowed miners to set any soft limit they want? Have it something like: allow any size as long as it's not more than x3 (or other number) the previous months average block size.

Market incentives will drive each mining pools soft limits. Increasing the limits will stimulate growth (increase centralization if done too fast compared to technology because of resources needed) while smaller blocks will increase fees. Some may like smaller blocks because of risk of orphans while others will want large blocks to grow the user base of people using bitcoins. Allowing a x3 size block means that as long as a minority are making small blocks, those who want larger ones can still help grow the "silly size" limit and those who have weak internet connections just have to download the blocks and can continue making small ones.

A spam attacker could only create large blocks that were bigger than all the pools soft limits only by mining it himself and the largest block he could create would be a x3 of the blocks on the system. And just like it's in their economic self interest to not get bigger than 51% it would also be in pools own self interest to not have a soft limit that would risk too much centralization of the system by making it too large for current technology and allows for the system to rapidly adapt at the time. The fact that most mining is done by pools means that the soft limit can be more fluid.

Ultimately if we let pools set any limit they want would they set limits that would allow bitcoin to thrive? If we assume the majority of pools act in the interest of a growing decentralized system would max block size be needed anymore other than something to prevent a "silly size" block?

That's my ultimate vote; no block size limit.

Peter R

legendary

Activity: 1162

Merit: 1007

Quote from: smooth on June 23, 2015, 06:42:49 PM

Quote from: Peter R on June 23, 2015, 06:40:33 PM

That being said, I do think the risk of miners publishing "ginormous" blocks if there was no cap at all is small. Based on real data, TradeBlock today estimated that it would take 137 seconds for a 8 MB block to propagate to half the nodes. By the time a 100 MB spam-block propagated, miners would have found another two and the spam block would be orphaned. The probability of success of such a spam attack is thus inversely proportional to the damage it can cause.

This is an incorrect or at least misleading analysis. The block doesn't need to propagate to 50% of the nodes, only 50% of the hash rate.

I agree, but it's the data they cite. So I used it. I think we can still infer something from it.

Carlton Banks

legendary

Activity: 3430

Merit: 3080

Quote from: Peter R on June 23, 2015, 06:15:39 PM

Quote from: Carlton Banks on June 23, 2015, 06:05:41 PM

Ok, so if you accept that the blocksize is not the only solution to the problem, then would you also accept that your guess for the rate of block size increase can only be sensibly made when the overall context you are applying it to is known? i.e. design first how you intend to mitigate the problems that bigger blocks bring, then you come up with your goldilocks increase curve?

I think you changed the wording a bit. I said no to this:

Quote from: Carlton Banks on June 23, 2015, 06:05:41 PM

...you believe the whole thing scales up using block size increases only. Is this really what you're implying?

Which I took to mean that "I accept that off-chain solutions could play a role in the future to help with scaling." I never meant to imply that I believed there could be a solution that doesn't involve blocksize scaling at all. I think regardless of the role played by off-chain solutions, we must scale up the blocksize for all the good reasons DeathAndTaxes lists here. Only later will we find out how much demand there is for off-chain TXs.

Sorry, I didn't mean off-chain solutions at all, the contenders there are perhaps too experimental and unproven to be planned around at this stage. I will refine the question: do you think bitcoin scales up to it's widest potential user base (everyone) using only block size increases, and remain peer to peer? We're all aware that's not possible, no?

smooth

legendary

Activity: 2968

Merit: 1198

Quote from: Peter R on June 23, 2015, 06:40:33 PM

That being said, I do think the risk of miners publishing "ginormous" blocks if there was no cap at all is small. Based on real data, TradeBlock today estimated that it would take 137 seconds for a 8 MB block to propagate to half the nodes. By the time a 100 MB spam-block propagated, miners would have found another two and the spam block would be orphaned. The probability of success of such a spam attack is thus inversely proportional to the damage it can cause.

This is an incorrect or at least misleading analysis. The block doesn't need to propagate to 50% of the nodes, only 50% of the hash rate.

In the case of (simplifying for illustration here) two large pools that together constitute 50% of the hash rate, that could mean propagating to exactly one other node.

TPTB_need_war

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 262

Quote from: tvbcof on June 23, 2015, 02:08:56 AM

cypherdoc changed his mind because Gavin did presumably. Gavin did because it was easier to do this as quitely as possible than to try to change the laws of arithmetic.

Both of them know that it's the exponential growth that is the critical element here since it is pretty certain to sink Bitcoin eventually. (Actually, cypherdoc may or may not know that or may or may not care much if he can make a buck in the interim.)

Quite clever wasn't it to start with 20MB then appear to compromise with some bloc of obscure "Chinese miners" who want 8MB and quietly slip in the exponential scaling.

Rothschilds (and the CIA) would be proud of the deception.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/editor-of-major-german-newspaper-says-he-planted-stories-for-the-cia/5429324

USG has no power abroad Huh

Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 195. (Read 2032248 times)