Topic: How does block size harm decentralization? (Read 749 times)

Anyone that has not figured out that the Entire Crypto Market Prices compared to fiat is being manipulated to exploit the clueless, is well clueless. 

I haven't seen them and what was there?

It made sense to short Bitcoin then as in retrospect (aka hindsight) we understand that there was nothing rational about those prices. It may in fact turn out in the end that there is nothing rational with these prices too, but that's not my point. If people say something and moreover if they mean that their words should be taken as a guide (like "sell everything right now while Bitcoin is still worth something"), you would expect them to follow their own advice, and in this particular case that would amount to shorting Bitcoin (as they don't have any bitcoins of their own to sell). Otherwise, it is all empty talk and no walk

Don't get me wrong here, I'm not on the outside, but I know how they feel and think about me or those cut from the same Bitcoin cloth. And you're right, it isn't a rational assumption at all. The problem with looking at price as the explanation for the irrationality is precisely that price isn't really the only rational we should be using. In fact, that those looking in from outside can't understand why something they feel is worthless should cost so much.

You're lucky not to have met more people (who think it's sad that others still believe in Bitcoin)... but haven't you seen the orderbooks on futures for the past year? Using your rationale of them shorting Bitcoin that is.

doomad

the kingscorpio thing has nothing to do with centralisation. its just a crappy website that no one really views or considers important, but kingscorpio treats it like the network relies on it.

however. in regards to things that actually do affect the bitcoin network/centralisation..  even by your own admission and such has shown that the network is far too reliant on core. your admiration and devotion to their tactics of control alone shout loudly how its the case. let alone the stuff i said

in short. show me how the network has changed due to code/protocol changes that didnt not involve core devs in the last say 4 years.

your own words of "compatible" when you talk about no vote needed. and "permissionless" when talking about their consensus bypass and how you admire that they get to control the network changes is where the centralisation lays. you really need to learn what the 2009-2013 consensus was all about, what the byzantine generals problem of pre2009 was about and how satoshi found the solution around it to make it so there doesnt need to be a single leader/controller/reference of the rules.

as for the fee formulae. delving into your mindset of your admiration for core and your (sometimes denial, sometimes loudly spoken) thoughts about cores permissionless ability.. yes i said core could write a fee priority formulae and activate it. after all with all the controversy around segwit, core still got their x1 via all the tactics they employed in summer 2017. so its not impossible. core are not just chimney sweeps that are powerless.

and i find it funny that when an idea is suggested that can improve things. suddenly the core defense league of echo chamber people suddenly pretend and flop around that core are then powerless and shouldnt be trusted to implement it.. purely because its not on their roadmap thus should not be implemented.

so atleast try to stick to one narrative. either man up and admit the centralised code updates and then only a DISTRIBUTION(sheep follow or thrown off network) of that code and stick to one narrative. or man up that your waffles are just social drama in an attempt to bore people into giving up discussing things not in cores roadmap via your meandering flip flops, just so core can follow through with their centralist plans unhindered by the community

by the way. reading all your insults. you are the cranky one. you especially get cranky and insulting when getting told to do something useful.. like research.

maybe spend less time on your social drama sideshow of personal waffles and actually start caring about bitcoin (not alternative networks/commercial services)

but have a good year.

Reading the comments makes me come to a conclusion that increasing the block size of bitcoin will lead to centralization and will probably make bitcoin more prone to various attacks.
This again leads to the same problem of scalability of bitcoin. My suggestion here would be to create a sidechain (an alternative blockchain) that will store all the old transactions in it.
The newer blockchain can be treated as the main source of verifying the transactions while the sidechain could be used to verify all the older transactions.
Obviously we can decide a point of time from where the older and newer transactions can be split and put into the sidechain and the newer blockchain.

Uh-oh, someone's turning into a cranky franky.  

Maybe take your own advice from that other topic, which I've helpfully amended to fit this topic:


If you think I'm being unfair to you, it's because your ideas are fundamentally misguided.  You don't even stop to consider the consequences.  It almost seems like you can't even understand what the consequences would be, even when they're pointed out to you in no uncertain terms.  Yes, I clearly do have legitimate concerns over a fee priority formula being added as a consensus rule.  I support the notion of fairer fees based on how often people transact, that part is an idea I could get on board with.  But your proposed implementation is utterly abysmal.  I explained why it would be a bad idea as a consensus rule and you haven't presented any counter-arguments to convince me otherwise.  Because you don't understand why your idea is bad.  You just repeat the same incoherent nonsense.  You think you're discussing things that would help and I'm discussing why I believe you are wrong.  This will continue until I believe you have stopped being wrong.  

If you can't comprehend how your idea of fees being a consensus rule might split the network, then you are in no position to blame others for the fact that no one likes your ideas.  The fault clearly lies with you.

go do some research. go watch some eastenders. go do somthing to atleast expand your views of bitcoin or your social drama limits

your flip flops and misunderstandings and denials of one thing to suggest another then flopping to deny another to suggest a further have become boring tactics of just social drivel that you continually try.

by implementing a fee mechanism can do things that counter your centralist mantra, while helping the community and pools and others.
waffle all you like to say that pools are needed to be conversed with while flipping that core devs can write what they like without needing to converse.
waffle all you like to say that users are needed to be conversed with while flipping that core devs can write what they like without needing to converse.

it was you that was emotionally spouting out your usual echo's that core can upgrade the network.. (remember your permissionless rhetoric). so dont now cry when i actually use your rhetoric against you to suggest core should do something that benefits a decentralised community.. because no one else can without getting rekt

(i can guess your next flip.. that core dont need to listen to community desires/needs/idea's, they will do what they want and ignore the community... which just circles back to the waffles listed above flops)

yes i get it anything to promote decentralisation you hate. but to then have you flop your own rhetoric about core and its compatibility and permisionless stuff.. is just you failing. moving from core being the trusted devs that you adore, to core just being chimney sweeps/janitors all in the space of a few posts is amusing to see you flop so much

end result
my OPINION and pure DISCUSSION is about things that can help. it is just words on a forum that harm no one
emphasis words on a forum. not code with mandated forks. so relax, dont get emotional

your reaction, i presume is that it might accidently open a few minds and have people want it, thus you fear that there may be a chance of it happening openly via a community open choice, without me even needing to write code. infuriates you.
it seems you actually fear the possibility of a NEW fee priority formulae being added as a consensus rule, you fear any discussion thats not optimistic to the centralist roadmap agenda

but oh well.
we all know you only want one direction of centralisation and commercialisation to occur. but beyond that you have become very boring with your unresearched flip flops.
especially when your flips flops are used against you.

but instead of trying to over-dramatise my comments. do some research
have a nice year,

Now read Squatter's post I've quoted below repeatedly until you understand it:


Fees in general are not a consensus rule.  Even things like the minimum relay fee can be altered by individual nodes without breaking consensus.  No one has to "publicly release a client" for any of this to apply.  It's just a matter of changing some configuration settings.    

Speak to the miners if you want to convince someone that your ideas about fees are worth implementing.  They are the only ones that can help you.  

There is no flip flop, you just don't understand Bitcoin well enough.  In fact, this scenario perfectly demonstrates why "devs don't need permission" and "devs can't change rules unless others agree" is not a flip flop.  And we all know how big a fan you are of running scenarios.  Let's pretend for a moment that Devs did introduce a fixed fee formula as a consensus rule (which has never been done before) in a new version of their client.  There's nothing to stop them putting that in their client if they wanted to.  They don't need permission to do that.  But then, if non-mining users chose to run it and none of the miners chose to run it, there would be a fork.  Miners could continue to use the current client-side rules and anyone else running the new client where fees are a consensus rule could find themselves on a network that has no miners on it.  Good job, franky1, your idea just split the network in a divisive fashion.  But seeing as you claim not to be a fan of controversy, it's probably not a smart move.  Which is one of the many reason devs chose, quite wisely, to leave fees up to the miners.  

If people don't agree with the code and don't run it, then clearly the devs don't make all the decisions.  Those securing the chain have to agree and run the code before the code can do anything.  If some of the people securing the chain enforce a consensus rule that others securing the chain don't, there can be a fork.  But not all rules are consensus rules.  Some things are left for users and miners to decide as node policy.  There are good reasons for this.

Again, you need to convince miners that your ideas about fees are beneficial.  Fees are not a consensus rule, because that could conceivably split the network.  Constantly raving about what devs do or don't do will not get you what you want.  Stop telling us to "research" when you are the ones who demonstrates a total lack of understanding time and time again.

Hi OP. Forgive me if I skip everyone, and answer you directly.


Storage is not a big problem. It's bandwidth that's the big problem. There are fewer and fewer people running nodes because syncing the blockchain takes frustratingly very long.


No. Resulting in the centralization of the network. Larger blocks improve functionality, but it scales the network in.


I believe you don't understand how it works. Even with pruning, you have to do the initial blockchain download, and validate it. All 200GB of it.


But how does taking away anyone's ability to run a node good?


Bigger blocks are inherently centralizing. What is there else to say?

Real scaling is to increase the network's functionality without giving up decentralization.

funny thing is people had same opinion as me and others YEARS before craig wright even was a thing..
who's the lapdog..
certainly craig wright didnt create the opinion... (do some research)
ill give you a hint. the real satoshi had th mindset that not everyone needed to be full nodes.
craig wright in 2015+ adopted that narative to try to convince people he was satoshi.

separate thing.
i have been thinking of bitcoin as a decentralised diverse network where not everyone needed to be a full node, before 2015


but yea you try your social drama games.. of distracting the narrative...
but try going to a forum about eastenders and coronation street as thats where social drama should reside

^
seriously.. you learned nothing..

pools just consolidate transactions into blocks..
its then for the nodes to accept those blocks (ultimately BLOCKSTREAMS fibre network AKA CORE roadmap/core dev invention) that decide what passes and what gets rejected(learn the network topology). so if the network had a fe formulae that was set as a rule. then pools would need to follow.

pools dont and wont write a node and publicly release it.. (REKT campaign of social drama by core would avoid that happening)
so knowing the CODE is centralised by core and has been. it would have to be core devs that write in a fee priority formulae.

but hey mr flip flop. wheres your
"devs dont need permission" if your now pretending devs cant change rules as they see fit
"compatibility" of nodes means core can do things without needing a vote
"i agree with cores tactic in august 2017" of the network push off

for months and month the only social debate was not that core control rule changes, but that you love their control and i detest their control.
and now you gone and went full flip flop to even pretend core are not even code creators and just chimney sweepers that do nothing for bitcoin (facepalm)

seriously sort your flip flips out

Take it up with the miners if you want fee priority changed.  Miners are making the decision.  Not Devs. 

It should be abundantly clear by this point that:

a) developers want to leave that choice in the hands of miners
b) developers have no ability to force miners to do anything and are relatively powerless even if they did want to make that choice
c) developers don't make all the decisions and it's a double standard for you to claim they do whilst simultaneously advocating they should make decisions about fees (which they don't want to and can't anyway, because see points a+b)



That's right, be a good little lapdog and keep spreading Craig Wright's arguments.  Then wonder why no one takes you seriously.

yep. correct
having 100,000 nodes are decentralised
funniliy the EXCUSES to say everyone(millions/billions) NEEDS to be a full node. so lets stifle bitcoin and deburden bitcoin of utility to push people into LN..
but then those with the stifle/deburden bitcoin mindset... then strangely are OK with factory servers/watchtower masternodes.. and then millions of users that are just autopilot slaves using litephone apps where their funds are locked with a factory/watchtower aswell as a counterparty

the hypocrisy is soo ludicrous the only end agenda for having that hypocrisy would be the LN lovers hope to be the hubs/watchtowers/factories getting rich

to preempt and answer the usual echo chamber crew of LN lovers rebuttles

1. initial blocksync time - can be solved with just grabbing a few UTXO set info of a users wallet to get an initial 'unverified' final balance. thus users are not twiddling thumbs(same method SPV/Bloom works..) but still including the full blocksync where the blocksync is then less of a time sensitive priority

2. initial blocksync bandwidth. - users dont need to be connected to 200 nodes  so just connect to 1-2 nodes and wait.
(point one) solves the twiddling thumbs waiting for utility issue. so downloading the blockchain is not a waiting dilemma but a background afterthought.

3. initial blockchain data. hard drives of 4 terrabyte are no problem. we are not stuck at millennium technology afterall
(same argument as games consoles and users wanting to play latest games apply. if you want to run it. expect to upgrade hardware more than once every 2 decades)

4. linear/quadratic sig validation.. reduce the sigops limit prevents a problem. no one needs thousands of sigops anyway

5. peer-to peer / cash/ money is a one user to one user analogy so the whole pushing for group transactions just bloat transaction sizes thus limit numbers of users who want independence away from group held custodial models. so get back to simple lean transactions

6. remove the wishy washy witness scale factor code that still under utilises blockdata limits

7. add a fee priority formulae that actually is beneficial to all. punishing just the spammers. but also allowing efficient infrequent transactors with a fee that differs from the spammers. but still effectively gives pools something. without having to stifle bitcoin utility and deburden the network(which definitely would kill miners fees)

all points above have nothing to do with increasing the blocksize but would most definitely get bitcoin passed the 600k tx a day threshold yet to be achieved.

and then
8. incremental (not massive gigabyte foolish nonsense)... INCREMENTAL growth like we had between 2010-2015

The narrative is that non-mining nodes matter, and the blockchain is way too bloated on 1MB already, let alone 8 or 32MB.
Thing is, if every merchant wants one, companies like BitPay own multiple (in order to check for double spends agains 0conf scammers) + all miners having the full blockchain + spv services + all exchanges you could argue that this situation is decentralized ENOUGH.
Decentralization is not a goal to work towards imho, it's just a means of achieving censorship resistence and a lack of central planners / single points of failure. And unless there's other benefits to decentralization (having useless people feel important as if they're participating is not a benefit) I don't see why having more full nodes is beneficial.

1. pools cant change the rules.(separate debate)
2. pools can IGNORE features that are not ruled(separate debate)
3. but ultimately it was the core devs that REMOVE or add code

EG pools still ran CODE that included the fee priority. they just ignored it.  they didnt release a node to the public that didnt include the fee priority.
pools did not release a node to the public.

it was the core devs that did.
so while pools were ignoring the fee priority, users were still getting messages about fee priority issues. until CORE removed it

ultimately though a new better fee mechanism can solve the issues you have of:
thinking blocks need to be stifled just to get people to pay
thinking pools wont get paid if blocks were large and demand was low

knowing the math that 1mb baseblock 2mb baseblock 4mb baseblock is not a harm to decentralisation..
knowing the math that 1mb, 2mb,4mb base block is no harm to miners
knowing the math that fee's are not essential for years/decades
knowing a fee priority formulae can be implemented to solve the previous 2 things when pools need fee's.
there is no reason to keep blocksizes low under the ruse of "helping pools"

The formula itself was never part of the protocol. That's why miners stopped supporting it once they realized they could increase their revenues with fees.

Core only removed priority from its fee and confirmation estimations because it was making those estimates inaccurate, as miners had completely stopped supporting it.

What miners did had everything to do with the formula: Miners are the ones who made sure transaction priority ceased to exist. For that, you can thank miners for being rational. It had absolutely nothing to do with Core.


You're confused about what "Bitcoin rules" are. Transaction priority was never a consensus rule. It was a client side rule. Not required by the protocol. That's why there was no fork when miners (and later Core) removed it from their clients.

That's not a rational assumption

It is not rational simply because 1 bitcoin is still somehow worth over 3000 dollars. That's a huge price tag from any sane point of view. And given that anyone can easily buy and sell bitcoins (a lot easier that buying stocks, for example), I don't think there are many such people (who think it's sad that people still believe in Bitcoin) since if they were in fact many and actually thought so, some would be shorting Bitcoin now. But if they are afraid to short, they should also question whether their attitude is valid

That's sort of the jagged beauty of Bitcoin, to me, though. You get people doing whatever they want to do, believing in whatever they want to. There are various truths and various realities, neither of them true for a long time. I don't know who's sane anymore, nor who has the most correct approach. Time and posterity will be the judge of that. Personally, I'm pretty conservative but probably not radical... so I find myself following what I feel is closest to that.

If you're looking from the outside, there are people who think it's sad that people still believe in Bitcoin, whichever form it is they are using.

This may have been true for a small number of people, but some of the more hardline fruitloops really do run a client that's based on an outdated 2014 version of bitcoind.  They claim all coins stored in SegWit addresses will eventually be stolen, simply because they believe themselves to be the economic majority and think that ordinary people will somehow want to follow "their" network when their fork (that doesn't include SegWit) takes place. 

I wish I were making this up, since they almost make the bigblockers sound sane by comparison.  But sadly, they're very real.

I'm not sure they were like the BCH crowd mentioned

Many of them were likely arguing in favor of "1mb forever" not because they actually were against SegWit (Lightning Network) or anything to that tune but rather because they felt they should have taken a more radical approach in fighting the BCH zealots, not being quite happy and content with the soft opposition to big blocks that the BlockStream members had turned to. In other words, they were not so much against the BlockStream camp as they were against the BigBlocks gang