Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 41. (Read 2032266 times)

Here's a store of value.



Wow.  That's like totally intense, man!

you may be on to something:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gutfp/if_youre_not_running_a_node_youre_not_really/cu1nlya

i've flipped the question around to the Cripplecoiner's a few times, as in, what happens if Gavin is the sole dissenter when the need to slip in the spvp for SC's comes around in a year or so?  will they gracefully and quietly back off since they won't have consensus?  the angry answer i get back always sounds like they'll ram it thru anyways.

that's just a re-write of what i've been advocating; lift the limit entirely.

but yeah, your idea is great b/c it would give full node operators a sense of being in charge via a pull down menu.  i like it.

don't forget that mining pools are just huge hashing overlays of full nodes which they operate and could use to do the same type of voting.

I had a strange idea recently: what if we don't even bother with BIP100, BIP101, etc., or trying to come to "consensus" in some formal way.  What if, instead, we just make it very easy for node operators to adjust their block size limit.  Imagine a drop down menu where you can select "1 MB, 2 MB, 4 MB, 8 MB, … ."  What would happen?  

Personally, I'd just select some big block size limit, like 32 MB.  This way, I'd be guaranteed to follow the longest proof of work chain, regardless of what the effective block size limit becomes.  I'd expect many people to do the same thing.  Eventually, it becomes obvious that the economic majority is supporting a larger limit, and a brave miner publishes a block that is 1.1 MB is size.  We all witness that indeed that block got included into the longest proof of work chain, and then suddenly all miners are confident producing 1.1 MB blocks.  Thus, the effective block size limit slowly creeps upwards, as this process is repeated over and over as demand for block space grows.

TL/DR: maybe we don't need a strict definition for the max block size limit.

Yeah I think we're past that point in the debate. It's now clear that the concern of those who make the technical claims regarding bandwidth is about ensuring that Bitcoin node-running is an all-inclusive activity. They insist that no one can be left out, or else it's not a "consensus." Well we're being left out right now, aren't we. By their logic we should be able to halt Bitcoin entirely during this debate because they don't have our consensus. There is no internal consistency in the whole "consensus" line of reasoning. It's just a feel-good buzzword except in the very narrow sense that of course a given version of Bitcoin will only operate among those who are currently in consensus. The lack of any mention of market cap or other economic factor during such invocations of consensus should be a red flag.

There are aspects of the debate where intelligent people may disagree, but this part is pure reactionary stalwartism at this point. It doesn't even jive with the fundamental nature of open source software, which makes consensus a fluid concept. At this point I'd say just find a way to put the forks on the market and let's arbitrage it out. I will submit if a fork cannot gain the market cap advantage, and I suspect the small-blockers will likewise if Core loses it. Money talks.

Perfect. As I said earlier, I don't understand the "hardness" of this fork (bigblocks). Mike Hearn said it better,

furthermore:

http://arstechnica.co.uk/gadgets/2015/08/samsung-unveils-2-5-inch-16tb-ssd-the-worlds-largest-hard-drive/

i really see no technical reasons why we can't have bigger blocks.  now.

this pretty much sums up Luke-Jr:

[–]bitvote 1 point 16 minutes ago

^ This is a useful comment because it shows the prejudice of u/Luke-jr perspective.

I work for a bitcoin company, get paid in bitcoin, buy many, many things with bitcoin, give bitcoin to friends and family, hodl bitcoin as a speculative investment.

But for u/luke-jr, none of this makes me a bitcoin user.

Which is, on the face of it, absurd. and offensive.

I admit there is value in running a node/mining, but certainly a community that claims to favor freedom should have the ability (and courage) to welcome a diverse range of users, even if they don't meet some arbitrary standard set by an elitist insider.

This comment, more than any other in the blocksize debate so far, reveals the flaw in perspective of the Evolution Deniers. But this is getting ridiculous:

    Redefining what an alt-coin is
    Censoring a main communication platform
    And redefining "bitcoin user" so that less than 1% of bitcoin holders are anointed as 'Real Users'

Enough already. It smells like tyranny, it looks like tyranny - it IS tyranny. And Bitcoin, more than any other community, should overthrow this flawed attempt at governance.

Remember, bitcoin works through Consensus by code. Not consensus by CODERS.

The last two sentences in the white paper: "They vote with their CPU power, expressing their acceptance of valid blocks by working on extending them and rejecting invalid blocks by refusing to work on them. Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism"

    permalink
    save
    parent
    report
    give gold
    reply

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3griiv/on_consensus_and_forks_by_mike_hearn/cu1krds

still rising:

is StarMaged the same as the mod here, Maged?  you'd think so...

but back to this, you and i can't be outliers as much as LukeJr and gmax want everyone to think in terms of bandwidth speed.  we can easily handle a significant block size increase, no problem.

StarMaged and others vs. theymos, BashCo, etc.?

unless the eye doctor has bad eyes, which he doesn't, then i swear it wasn't there 30 min ago.

they're still lying to you:

This is the second time in the past few days it has looked like a possible internal squabble among the mods. Perhaps someone is hiding them and someone else is reinstating them.

hmm, back up for me too.  WTF?

/u/raisethelimit has been having all sorts of problems:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gsxqf/all_my_posts_are_currently_being_censored_this_is/cu19uva?context=3

yeah, but you're in Norway 

Here's mine. $30 a month



Though Greg or someone will pipe in and say Speedtest does some kind of test that isn't that real-world relevant or something.