Topic: is Greg Maxwell wrong about the block increase? - page 3. (Read 4413 times)

On that subject, I am posting this here for observers to understand this is a misrepresentation of the dynamics at stake and a disingenuous lie:

http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010796.html

Sing it.

Anyway, what's gotten into you people? What is all this panic about? Am I crazy or are we not even pushing .5MB blocks on average? The only thing irrational panic will cause is irrational decisions. Seems like that's what XT is about.....making people believe there is one option: raise the limit, take the first option available and do it immediately in case a billion people adopt bitcoin tomorrow. Thank goodness people now realize there are other BIPs, and more to come.

With my rudimentary understanding of large scale systems..... I will say that it's almost offensive that people are suggesting that what is true in the context of a 1MB block limit is true in the context of an 8GB block limit. I'll defer to the experts on the details, but security is paramount. Allowing limitless, or near-limitless scaling could be a nightmare.....it could cause the number of full nodes to plunge due to cost, it could cause block propagation times to skyrocket and result in much higher volume of orphaned blocks.....it could literally cut off entire regions of miners and full nodes if bandwidth limitations do not improve to the level of capacity increases...... more importantly, it can and will cause a multitude of problems that we have not even thought of yet -- since bitcoin has never been tested under such conditions.

A 2X increase would allow ample time for us to study the issues that come with scaling and address them. An 8000X increase, hard-coded? Good luck.

And using Moore's Law to predict transaction volume, really? That's a fucking insult to any thinking person. So now a failing theory on processor capacity is the basis to predict capacity needs in a social system? I think Gavin Anderson should take Logic 101, even if he's dead set on believing in Moore's Law (which is sort of laughable).

This whole thing is a like a sick joke..... it's like people are using their fantasies of exponential adoption and $100k bitcoins and using zero foresight to push something that could end up completely destroying confidence in bitcoin.....

Without security, your bitcoins are worthless. BIP101 supporters, can you guarantee the security of the network at 8GB block limit? Of course you can't. Bitcoin has spent its entire life with blocks at considerably less than 1MB. Have you ever considered what happens when a tick-tock model begins outrunning our abilities to support it?

Oh, sure. We can soft fork the limit down after a magnificent fuck-up that cripples confidence in bitcoin. Can you ensure that transactions aren't rolled back? Double spends won't be performed? Have you any idea how much money could be lost due to this reckless idiocy?

Basically, the totality of reasoning behind the recklessness of BIP101 are these words from Gavin Anderson:

I like how you balantly ignore that bitcoin core is already centralized. I love how you conclude that blocksize increase means less decentralization when almost every new bitcoin users use spv client.

Meanwhile you implied having addons like paypal somehow improves decentralization. Stupid much? Or you're just having brain fart as usual.

What the block size debate reflected is a serials of consideration about the design philosophy behind a decentralized monetary system

To serve others or let others serve you, that is the question

The Federal Reserve never care about average users transaction demand, their interbank settlement system is old and slow, but they just print tons of money and people still worship them and happily use dollar everywhere. People even invented paypal, visa, master card to do thousands of transactions per second to help them to spread their money. Why?  It's effect of authority, their authority gains average people's trust, they don't need to sort out the rest of the technical details

Similarly, if bitcoin can establish such authority image in the eyes of average user, any technical problem will be solved by people voluntarily

Would more decentralization and censorship resistant raise its authority or more transaction capacity raise its authority? Kind of both, but I think decentralization holds higher priority

Agree.  The purpose of this thread was to question the wisdom of sir Gregory which until
I recently I assumed was beyond reproach, but I am no longer operating under that bias.

Uh, what? I've got better things to do than argue semantics. You can pretend you won this argument if that makes you feel better.

Dude lets face it. None of our words matter. What will be, will be.

Que sera, sera.

PS: You still anti-vaccination?

so... you ignore the hypothetical when it doesn't suit you and embrace it when it does.  

Moreover, it was the very hypothetical that you insisted was likely (that XT becomes another altcoin) that you now refuse to consider. 

Knight's question is also is based on the contingency of "if." That's why I ignored it.

If superior alien beings come to earth within the next year and knock out electric systems and infrastructure, bitcoin won't exist at all. That's also a pretty big "if."

Otherwise it sounds like we are actually in agreement.

"if" proposes a hypothetical, not a current reality, but we are getting into semantics.

I am not a shill for XT.  I never even brought up XT.  You did.  I would rather see bigger blocks happen without XT and fortunately that seems to be unfolding already as most miners are voting for bip 100.  

But knight22 posed an interesting question that I would be amused to see you answer.

If bitcoin forks (and it has been forked before, several times), you will have 2 blockchains, hence the need for 2 different names. You didn't clear up anything other than that you are a shill for XT.

Until XT surpasses BTC in market cap, it is a de facto altcoin. Its not a matter of opinion. Do you understand that "alt" is short for "alternate" or "alternative"? What coin do you think is being referenced as "primary"? I'll give you a hint, it starts with "b."

Well, in the final we can just see what will people choose.

Let's pretend the fork happens and the Core chain remains alive. When all of the industry including major exchanges switched to XT, following by speculatiors then the miners. New investment flow to XT chain simply because it scales and Core doest. By which logic you think Core will still keep a significant market cap? Because ideology of small blocks?

We can talk when there is ANY market cap, which there isn't because , again, XT is not a coin.  Hope I cleared that up for you. 

XT isn't the only way to bigger blocks.  Are you aware of the block votes ?

lol no, they might use them VC n00bs.. but as they say.. buy the rumor.. SELL THE NEWS


edit: special kuddos to circle, bitpay, coinbase et al. having growth trouble much.. ^^

+ where my wall street boys??

OK lets talk again when XT surpasses BTC in market cap.

There won't be an XT created fork until and unless 75% of the miners are running Bip 101 and core refuses to upgrade.

If and when that happens, I suppose you can argue that XT is an altcoin but you'll be arguing against the economic supermajority who will say that 1mb Bitcoin is the alt.

Until the fork, right? Then it is its own coin. Or are you going to argue with this, too?

Why try to make things more confusing for XT? You are just beating a dead horse.

no idea...the conversation between Nutildah and me went like this:

N: blocks are only at .44
J:  yes but doubling annually.
N: but then why can't Gavin work with core
J: Greg wants a standing backlog, he doesn't want to.
N: XT will be another altcoin
J: XT is an alt client, not a coin.

Why are we still talking about XT like it actually has a chance? Number of (fake) nodes already going down. Absolutely no support from miners...

Face it, it was dead on arrival.

Well I'm 90% sure you're wrong and misinformed.