Meni Rosenfeld proposes an elastic block cap where miners are penalized progressively for blocks bigger than whatever the limit is.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.11517847
The idea is to avoid a "crash landing" at 1MB or even at 8 or 20MB. Bitcoin adoption is known to come in order-of-magnitude spurts, so even 20MB isn't immune to a crash landing scenario; and think how much harder another order-of-magnitude increase will be from 20MB, or from 200MB.
We need a way to turn these brick walls into gentle hills, not just lengthen the road leading to them. (To be clear, I think we should do both. Actually having no limit probably does both.)
Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 291. (Read 2032266 times)
I remain largely neutral about whether Bitcoin, Monero, or any future cryptocurrency will actually succeed on a large scale.
Does that include all potential Butterfly effects?
No, I have no idea of the possible range of outcomes.
Satoshi's own words: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.15366
[gossip about personalities]
This seems very plausible.
It's also irrelevant.
20MB blocks aren't a Gavinista vs Greg issue. The XT controversy has set the Gavinistas against all our other core devs.
All other core devs are acting as a block called Blockstream. Wladimir is just temporarily confused over full nodes vs users.
Blockstream hasn't hired "all other core devs." And let's not even start with Gavin and THE BITCOIN FOUNDATION INC.
Converted my first node to XT today.
Frap.doc is empowering kids in Africa to buy their frosty blended coffee beverages with the tool Satoshi intended to destroy TBTF banks.
Heartwarming. I'm sure there won't be any trade-offs or problems you'll expect gmax to fix.
Converted my first node to XT today.
[gossip about personalities]
This seems very plausible.
It's also irrelevant.
20MB blocks aren't a Gavinista vs Greg issue. The XT controversy has set the Gavinistas against all our other core devs.
All other core devs are acting as a block called Blockstream. Wladimir is just temporarily confused over full nodes vs users.
How did this go from a gold collapsing bitcoin up thread to a poll about Gavin?
The ongoing Gavinista coup and looming Great Schism are widely considered the most serious and credible threats yet to cypher's bullish "Bitcoin UP" prediction/outlook.
Is not the Chicago boys any of us have to worry about. It's the Monero boys.
[gossip about personalities]
This seems very plausible.
It's also irrelevant.
20MB blocks aren't a Gavinista vs Greg issue. The XT controversy has set the Gavinistas against all our other core devs.
It seems that the gavinistas are the true satoshistas: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.8810
[gossip about personalities]
This seems very plausible.
It's also irrelevant.
20MB blocks aren't a Gavinista vs Greg issue. The XT controversy has set the Gavinistas against all our other core devs.
How did this go from a gold collapsing bitcoin up thread to a poll about Gavin?
frap.doc's man crush on gavin the g-man turned into a cheerleading rally session to get the plebes onto the new bitcoin spook-fork.
both frap.doc and karpeles want to frap it up on the blockchain.
Is that even supposed to be funny marcus? Surely you have more imagination than iCELatte?
Of course, you're not man enough to admit you always throw the first stone are you?:
http://reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/381ygv/who_is_in_favour_of_reducing_the_blocksize_limit/crsjw15
Gavin is pragmatic and respects his limitations because he values his accomplishments more than his appraisal of his knowledge, i.e. he doesn't have insecurities or is more balanced. Greg is idealistic and doesn't respect his limitations because he values his appraisal of his knowledge more than his accomplishments, i.e. he has some insecurities or is less balanced.
You definitely want Greg to leave your coin and go to the competitor's coin where he can pretty well muck it up. CoinJoin is a great example of that.
Don't get me wrong, Greg is smarter and more knowledgeable than me when it comes to math and crypto. He is a guy you'd love to have for his smarts, but you'd need to be very careful not to hand him the keys. Perhaps you could bring him around with some social engineering. I found that by being more careful about the way I interacted with him in ways that painted his ego well, he was more accommodating. I doubt he wants to leave Bitcoin, because he wouldn't have the same prominence with any other direction. Thus is he ripe to be accommodating.
You definitely want Greg to leave your coin and go to the competitor's coin where he can pretty well muck it up. CoinJoin is a great example of that.
Don't get me wrong, Greg is smarter and more knowledgeable than me when it comes to math and crypto. He is a guy you'd love to have for his smarts, but you'd need to be very careful not to hand him the keys. Perhaps you could bring him around with some social engineering. I found that by being more careful about the way I interacted with him in ways that painted his ego well, he was more accommodating. I doubt he wants to leave Bitcoin, because he wouldn't have the same prominence with any other direction. Thus is he ripe to be accommodating.
This seems very plausible.
frap.doc's man crush on gavin the g-man turned into a cheerleading rally session to get the plebes onto the new bitcoin spook-fork.
both frap.doc and karpeles want to frap it up on the blockchain.
Now that's just cruel. LOL!
seems character assassination and smearing is what frap.doc wants this thread to be about, I can oblige in any good mud-slinging, pig-wrestling descent into farce.
I'm half tempted to try to remember how I did the ag and adjust it again.
Not only that friend, what else are they planing to change down the line? Like I said many moons ago, they will try change the emission and they will start making Bitcoin permanently inflationary, not that I'm against the model, I like Monero exactly because the disinflation but it is a severe rupture of Bitcoin's trust and social contract and all started with the project being hijacked into this obscure XT fork.
If they try to make a change like that, users will migrate away from their fork just as easy as they migrated to it.In the end, the developers don't actually have any power - they can only product the software which users want or refrain from doing so.
People are sheep that will go with the loudest/best advertising, regardless of benefit/detriment. Just look at every other system in existence.
I should have read these replies first. Seems others agree with my stance.
I will take another hiatus (maybe more than a few days and hopefully forever).
Gavin's strength is his maturity and calm demeanor, imo. he'll win if it comes down to a battle.
Nope. Szatoshi will back Back and Maxwell. The cypherpunks will stick together (or hang separately).
You should change your handle to 'FrappuccinoDoc.'
Bitcoin XT is a poison pill for all the newbs and unwary, certain bug fix commits that went into Core have already been omitted. Both Hearn and Andresen have been covertly anti-privacy from day zero, paying it only lip service when pressed. Don't trust it or them. Not to mention it is poorly maintained and totally untested. I can't believe I'm reading such a mad approach being championed on these pages ... it's like a twilight zone episode wtf are you people thinking !!! following Pied Pipers now?
Not only that friend, what else are they planing to change down the line? Like I said many moons ago, they will try change the emission and they will start making Bitcoin permanently inflationary, not that I'm against the model, I like Monero exactly because the disinflation but it is a severe rupture of Bitcoin's trust and social contract and all started with the project being hijacked into this obscure XT fork.
Quote
Neither me nor Gavin believe a fee market will work as a substitute for the inflation subsidy. It just doesn’t seem to work, economically.
https://medium.com/@octskyward/crash-landing-f5cc19908e32
Who said that? You guessed right, Gavin's vice-fuhrer.
if they get there way, they wont have any power to change things it will be a democracy of users who decide, luckily Monero doesn't have a nullc yet.
Same reply as I have to rocks. You apparently haven't been paying attention to my posts.
Adam Back is still pinning hopes on alternative solutions...
One theory I have entertained is that Adam and Greg both see Bitcoin's design is highly flawed, and they've been trying to forestall hoping a solution could be found. I bet they on their own long ago realized the points I have written about centralization are correct. They've tried to keep their true appraisals hidden and work for solutions, but haven't really found any (but they don't dare admit that).
P.S. My past few posts about people are highly speculative and not intended to be statements of fact.
They may have what they think is a better idea, Sidechains could be a way to sling shot momentum.
Adam Back is still pinning hopes on alternative solutions...
One theory I have entertained is that Adam and Greg both see Bitcoin's design is highly flawed, and they've been trying to forestall hoping a solution could be found. I bet they on their own long ago realized the points I have written about centralization are correct. They've tried to keep their true appraisals hidden and work for solutions, but haven't really found any (but they don't dare admit that).
P.S. My past few posts about people are highly speculative and not intended to be statements of fact.
One classic Gmax thing is to make every statement interpretable in a safe way. For example, today's reddit post where someone was accusing Peter Todd of being biased against an increase because of his affiliation with Viacoin. I don't think there is much merit to the accusation (though that doesn't excuse Todd's sensationalism), but in Greg's reply he said, "Welcome to Reddit, 'Viacoin66'!"
He will say something that looks safe and unantagonizing (just the standard Reddit welcome), but his real purpose is to point out that the account was bran new and imply that it was obviously created to troll Viacoin/Todd. He's probably right about that, but nevertheless it's an example of what I mean where he'll say whatever serves any sort of low-blow purpose in a debate as long as it can be interpreted as not being that. I guess with his security testing mindset he has become Mr. Plausible Deniability.
He will say something that looks safe and unantagonizing (just the standard Reddit welcome), but his real purpose is to point out that the account was bran new and imply that it was obviously created to troll Viacoin/Todd. He's probably right about that, but nevertheless it's an example of what I mean where he'll say whatever serves any sort of low-blow purpose in a debate as long as it can be interpreted as not being that. I guess with his security testing mindset he has become Mr. Plausible Deniability.
You almost got it.
He is winning the "I am the smartest dude here" argument to himself. By obscuring his point, he further proves to himself that he is smarter than everyone else that misses the point. And those who are smart enough to get it, will realize that he is speaking to them, while throwing off the lesser dogs from the scent so he won't have to waste his time arguing with them. He lives in his own world. For as long as he is correct, then he has won.
He is very comfortable with Adam Back because he views him as an intellectual peer.
It isn't about real world results for him, although he doesn't rationalize it that way. In his mind, it probably plays something like, "by being the most correct, we will attain the best outcome".
...
There are issues among such a group of people that we probably can't hope to understand. The politics, the interpersonal clashes, the miscommunications, the lingering grudges tinting things. Again, I think your implication may be right, this may be more a social issue than a technical one.
There are issues among such a group of people that we probably can't hope to understand. The politics, the interpersonal clashes, the miscommunications, the lingering grudges tinting things. Again, I think your implication may be right, this may be more a social issue than a technical one.
Interesting. I decided to read all Greg's recent posts and found one which makes his position much clearer.
Quote
There is a soft blocksize limit in addition to the hard one. Originally it wasn't easy to adjust. We ran into the soft limit, and were pushing into it for months at a time back at the end of 2012 and beginning of 2013. Transactions slowed down and there was some complaining, but the wheels did not fall off and Bitcoin's adoption grew substantially during that time. A lot of technical innovation happened then-- in particular replace-by-fee was invented and child-pays-for-parent was deployed. After the soft limits were increased, development on these improvements went fallow, sadly (e.g. CFPF was never merged, or matured to a merge ready state, in Bitcoin Core).
The experience we have says there will not likely be a dire emergency. We also have reason to believe, from the prior accidental quasi-hardfork, that the mining portion of the network can be updated within a day or two during an actual emergency. A straight-forward blocksize bump also has the benefit of being completely compatible with existing SPV clients (they can't see the blocksize). If there really were a dire situation where it was larger blocks or doom-- I'm confident that larger blocks could be deployed quickly without much trouble; and in that kind of situation: consensus would be easy. No matter how concerned people are about larger sizes, if the choice is really larger or a useless network, the former is preferable to everyone. There is also plenty of room for other creativity, as we saw before in 2013, should the need arise, but it can be hard to predict in advance.
The experience we have says there will not likely be a dire emergency. We also have reason to believe, from the prior accidental quasi-hardfork, that the mining portion of the network can be updated within a day or two during an actual emergency. A straight-forward blocksize bump also has the benefit of being completely compatible with existing SPV clients (they can't see the blocksize). If there really were a dire situation where it was larger blocks or doom-- I'm confident that larger blocks could be deployed quickly without much trouble; and in that kind of situation: consensus would be easy. No matter how concerned people are about larger sizes, if the choice is really larger or a useless network, the former is preferable to everyone. There is also plenty of room for other creativity, as we saw before in 2013, should the need arise, but it can be hard to predict in advance.
He doesn't really want to engage in the mechanics of a block size increase right now, because his opinion is that the limit can be safely maxed out. I wish he had said this a couple of years ago in BCT because then the pros-and-cons of letting the limit be hit could have been hammered out before the question of how to change the limit needed addressing (which is the case now). Maybe he didn't say this two years ago because it wasn't his position then?
Compromise is very difficult when one side does not recognize that an urgent problem, or even just that a problem, exists.
He is looking at it from a very technical level. Advantages of hitting the limit is speeding the development of some software components, work in adversity etc, the downside is non-technical: a PR disaster, collapsing price, loss of VC enthusiasm, academics noting that a decentralized community cannot be trusted to manage a global currency. IMHO, these downsides far outweigh the technical, software benefits. It is simply playing with fire.
He also forgets that not all mining pools obeyed the soft-limits in 2013. A few didn't. e.g. when the soft-limit was 250KB Eligius was mining 500, when the soft-limit was 500 Eligius mined 750. There was always some level of extra capacity which does not exist at 1MB.
He repeatedly says that he is worried about centralization, loss of nodes. Well, the fact is the fastest way to kill*off the most nodes at once is to quickly deploy a hard-fork. A hard-fork needs as much time as possible to be as smooth as possible, maintaining the network intact.
*Nodes left on an old fork are not guaranteed to upgrade, some will just switch off.
Yes again you can see Greg as the nerd in the basement with his trains, optimizing all the gears and mechanisms, but totally oblivious to what is going on in the kitchen.
Btw, I had trains in the basement. But I did come up from the dungeon eventually.
I singled out the first posts by 2 core Devs. to get a taste for there personality in the wild - early days when everyone was working nicely. (note if you read it, many other devs. are quite encouraging.)
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1331489
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1389749
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1331489
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1389749
Sorry need to quote the first one explicitly:
All rules I found are enforced. I am eager to learn any outstanding.
The biggest deliverable is serious testing.
I would love to get this production ready this year, but since I only work on this on my spare time and my family has other plans with me around Christmas, I can not commit.
The biggest deliverable is serious testing.
I would love to get this production ready this year, but since I only work on this on my spare time and my family has other plans with me around Christmas, I can not commit.
Okay. You're missing at least one important rule, but I don't know what else is missing that I missed in review.
Unless you object, I'm contemplating keeping this missing rule to myself for now so that it can function as a test of the testing. E.g. if the test don't find it, they're incomplete. Obviously I don't want to withhold information which could undermine the network, but absent better testing the software shouldn't be in production use anyways... and there are scarcely few good ways of testing the tests. Does this sound reasonable to you?
My english vocabulary is not wide enough to define how presumptuous gmaxwell's reply was. Thanks for the pointer Adrian, very informative.
Greg's post is myopic, self-serving, not pragmatic, and too idealistic.
Jump to: