Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 77. (Read 2032266 times)

 

You woke up in a bad mood today? Your maid refused to make you breakfast? 1% life must be stressful heh 

I certainly won't "shut the hell up" when retards like you are championing lifting the block size limit entirely as some sort of rational opinion.

Then  shut the hell up with your MP pronouncements and references to crap articles like yesterday's.

For the record this is mostly my POV as well.

I support modest increases in line with hardware improvements (until and unless software/protocol improvements are made to allow even larger blocks to be supported safely). That's probably something like 2-3 MB at this point. I don't support automatic increases to the moon or removing the limit or anything radical like that.

sarcasm?

Support from an unexpected camp:

Within our mandate, the bitcoin community is ready to do whatever it takes to expand the bitcoin blocksize. Even if we have to implement the evil bit. Believe me, it will be enough.

Mario Draghi

I support modest increases in line with hardware improvements (until and unless software/protocol improvements are made to allow even larger blocks to be supported safely). That's probably something like 2-3 MB at this point. I don't support automatic increases to the moon or removing the limit or anything radical like that.

So you are in the largeblock (1MB+) camp. Did I understand you correctly? If so, I think you should go for 1MB+ blocks, not 1MB blocks.

No, you missed the point entirely. I don't think an altcoin running the same technology as Bitcoin, can deliver 100x the capacity.

To do that would require something different and we don't even know what it is.

As far as modest increases, in line with hardware (mostly bandwidth since that seems to be the slowest-progressing at the moment, but I'm not sure that is stable), I think Bitcoin should do that, so there is no room for an altcoin there.

So you want an altcoin, running basically the same technology as bitcoin, to try to make a 1MB+ block first, and if it works, you want that altcoin to succeed and not bitcoin? Wow, that was some real safety first thinking.

I basically agree with this. The reason there is no consensus in the developer community is (probably) not that some of them are Compromised and secretly working for banks to undermine Bitcoin, it is that there are very real tradeoffs and the best answer is not at all obvious.

There is likewise no obvious answer to how make an altcoin that has 100x Bitcoin's capacity without compromising on something else important in the process. Maybe there is an answer but it isn't obvious and if an altcoin manages to do it, maybe that altcoin perfectly well deserves to win, because it will have accomplished something that is extremely difficulty and important, possibly as or more important than satoshi's original accomplishment, and it will have done it first.

I agree with ZB that getting good at hard forking would be valuable, but I see less chance of that realistically happening than waking up tomorrow to find out that the Bitcoin developers have announced an Ultimate Solution to the block size question. As hard as blocksize is, hard forking safely is harder.

There is no such things like Bitcoin with 100x capacity. The security trade-off is disproportionate with the incremental amount of txs you can process.

Spinoffs work as an altcoin defence provided we're talking about Bitcoin vs. altcoins in the context of the Bitcoin community. But as long as you have a gigantic mass market still largely unfamiliar with Bitcoin, an "altcoin" (not an altcoin from their perspective, which is the key point) can take over if it can pull off the miracle of dramatically outpacing Bitcoin's adoption rate.

For elaboration of this aspect of the argument, see:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.11423570
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.11423612
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.11423877
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.11423961 (best summary here)

That miracle becomes a lot easier if Bitcoin gets artificially hobbled way below its potential. Now the question of whether we could have 100MB blocks now without wrecking decentralization, and are leaving all that extra capacity on the table for "Supercoin" to come and grab, remains up in the air. Surely intelligent people can disagree on where exactly the real capacity limit lies, and probably by orders of magnitude at that, considering all the optimizations we have yet to think of and all the new brainpower that the next wave of exponential growth will bring in.

The correction I'd like to make is to the idea that we can afford to keep Bitcoin potentially one or more orders of magnitude below its capacity under the assumption that we have all the time in the world to succeed.

There is no such things like Bitcoin with 100x capacity. The security trade-off is disproportionate with the incremental amount of txs you can process.

To get in the ballpark where some people here would wanna go you'd need 100000X anyway.

I also happen to think it would be a mistake, from where you sit, to pretend that people involved are "watching from the sidelines".

This post was strangely out of character for you I should say. To read references to alt-coins competition from you was a surprise! It seems more than most here you have championed the importance of the economic majority and its interest in respecting the ledger. Well unless you refer to the "spin-offs" idea, it seems out of question for me that the ledger would ever move to another chain that is not secured by the longest proof-of-work.

This post was strangely out of character for you I should say. To read references to alt-coins competition from you was a surprise! It seems more than most here you have championed the importance of the economic majority and its interest in respecting the ledger. Well unless you refer to the "spin-offs" idea, it seems out of question for me that the ledger would ever move to another chain that is not secured by the longest proof-of-work.

No, there is competition from altcoins to consider. If we leave 99% of the market on the table because of ultraconservatism about blocksize, we let an altcoin have all that, and Bitcoin gets swept by the wayside. And guess which one ends up more decentralized.

The supposed conservatism or carefulness in keeping the 1MB cap (or growing it only slowly) is entirely illusory. The only position that can conceivably be called conservative is one where the blocksize cap is set as high as is likely to be feasible. The conservative option isn't "do nothing." The conservative option is to set the cap almost as high as we think any competitor will be able to feasibly do so. The network effect will take care of the slop factor, but not if that slop factor is a Texas mile because we didn't even bother aiming.


Over-patience is the same as breaking it. The result is the same because competition is ever-present. Network effect means small mistakes and sub-optimalities are forgiven, and often even substantial ones, but gigantic ones cannot be. An altcoin with orders of magnitude bigger block capabilities, able to scale on the fly because there is no limit, and experiencing no problems because the conjectured issues turned out to be frivolous...that's a tough cookie for the network effect to swallow.

No one cares about an altcoin boasting 5x Bitcoin's capacity...because it's not Bitcoin. But if it boasts 100x Bitcoin's capacity, that's a game-changer. We have to at least get in the ballpark. Watching from the sidelines is not going to cut it, and I refuse to call that in any way conservative, patient, or careful.

No one cares about an altcoin boasting 5x Bitcoin's capacity...because it's not Bitcoin. But if it boasts 100x Bitcoin's capacity, that's a game-changer. We have to at least get in the ballpark. Watching from the sidelines is not going to cut it, and I refuse to call that in any way conservative, patient, or careful.