Topic: Montreal scaling Bitcoin workshop recap. - page 3. (Read 4491 times)

Computing resources and bandwidth are not "meant to be cheap" either, especially if your plan is to support all of the world's transactions.

Take a hike you clown, no one here takes you seriously.

What's retarded is your comparison. Ferrari are not meant to be cheap. They are meant for the rich people market. Also, if Ferrari were nodes, there would be far enough to keep the network secure and decentralized 

The zero value posts of the sad user LaudaM:

"Yet with a flawed paper you've managed to gather a group of 'followers' around here."

"Honestly I do not have time to asses your paper, nor am I that interested in it (in general)."

The problem with Peter's paper is quite simple: it ignores reality. It is quite representative of traditional economist failures trying to paint real world issues in a vacuum relying on a bunch of spherical cows.

 

I'd really love to have a Ferrari. Why the fuck can't this stupid free market come up with cheap solutions 

God damn you are retarded.

@Peter R: I really liked your presentatation, but i must say that the "bigger picture" of financing the security of the network is not appropriately addressed (at least in the presentation), imho it doesn' help that the market is fixing the size of blocks, if there is a more fundamental financing problem of the networks security, something i called the economic law of bitcoinsecurity: the cost of  the network = the fees for the consumers

Could you have a short look at it and till me where the mistake in this mysterious calculation are, because otherwise that (admittedly rough calculation/first primitive version of a thought) would show a financing problem for the next 4-5 years of bitcoin which puts the whole blocksize debate in a very different perspective:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/in-the-blocksize-debate-one-thing-is-really-beeing-overlooked-security-cost-1180471

Would like to hear your opinion about it!

Greetings!

I understand the importance of decentralized nodes very well. No need to remind it to me.

My point is that there is enough incentives to run a node to keep bitcoin secure and decentralized.

The free market has enough wisdom and knowledge to use the laws of physics and come up with cheap solutions to run a node because people like me are willing to pay for such device. 

 

TIL the free market doesn't answer to the laws of physics and will fit a datacenter into your pocket because.... incentives!!!

No, that says enough.

It's not overt at all, this is a sociopathic form of contempt. I'll use your next reply to explain...


Great stuff. What you've stated there is the premise of the debate, namely:

• 1MB is too small going forward, regardless of the overlay networks that might relieve that
• Changing that limit is part of the consensus rules, so hard fork needed

That's where everyone is starting the debate from.

Except the people arguing for BIP101. They have a highly consistent habit of labelling everyone who doesn't like it as "1MB'ers". It's a dishonest tactic, as it serves as an attempt to distort their opponents arguments in the most extreme way they can. They then use that unreality as the basis to argue against these imaginary positions.


This idea sounds tempting, but it isn't a good idea.

The supply and demand of blocksizes to the network doesn't work well with arbitrary limits, as you've identified yourself. But it also does not work if you remove the limit altogether; there exists an incentive to game the system. Creating algorithmic rules on the network to govern re-sizing will essentially fulfil what you're advocating; no prescribed limit. Scheduled caps (such as the scheme that Peter R advocates in his paper that you like) will not create that free market; the caps and the incentive to abuse them will still be there.

Anything else you would like to add to this personal attack? I didn't review his paper, others did. I never said that I would not discuss it based on the opinions/reviews of others. With (in general) I mean papers related to the fee market. I do not have time to read that. If you are not going to contribute properly, do not contribute at all. Anyone who does this next will be permanently ignored as well. I shall not waste my time with such people.

Instead of "Peter Todd is wrong because of XXX" you go for "let's attack Lauda because of XYZ". This bring us back to:

---

---

Update: The said user was put on ignore because of zero value posts, attacks and trolling.

LaudaM against LaudaM:

"Yet with a flawed paper you've managed to gather a group of 'followers' around here."

"Honestly I do not have time to asses your paper, nor am I that interested in it (in general)."

Makes not much sense to discuss with people like that.

There might have been censorship at /r/bitcoin. There has not been any censorship here. Threads were getting moved, not deleted, neither did anyone get punished for constructive posts about XT. Let me say this one more time: This is a privately owned forum. If you don't like it then you're free to start your own (as XT supporters did).

Regardless, this is completely off topic. Let's get back to your paper. Peter Todd (source = reddit):
Yet with a flawed paper you've managed to gather a group of 'followers' around here. That is interesting.

In your opinion, has there been censorship at /r/bitcoin or here?

There is no financial incentive to run a node. That was what I wanted to say. If what you say is correct, there is only a handful of people really involved with Bitcoin. Considering the huge amount of "incentives" to run a node, there should be many more than we have today, correct? I'm pretty sure that most of the supporters do not understand the importance of decentralized nodes.


It is pretty obvious who is doing this. One must never look at their solution as the perfect way of doing something. We can not have a normal discussion with most people who support XT or BIP101 that is. They complained about non existent censorship, and yet here they are again even after they created their own forum. Instead of actually having a good discussion, they chose to ignore decent (or better) arguments/questions and proceed to spread nonsense.

---

---

I'm pretty sure what you have started doing could be considered trolling (looking at your other posts). I've shown you that centralization is a problem as requested, and you've chosen to ignore it and make posts as the quoted one.

I'm still waiting for a proper answer.

If there is no incentives then why there is nodes on the network?

Here are your incentives:

Individuals - Fans that want to contribute to the network
                - Heavily financially invested individual that wants to contribute at securing the network
                - Others?

Businesses: - Perform analysis on the network
                 - Having a better control of the transactions they are performing
                 - Heavily financially invested businesses that wants to contribute at securing the network
                 - Others?

Miners: - Miners need to mine on a node at some extent


Since there is no financial gains to run a node, solutions must be cheap. Their is no doubt the free market will monetize on that.

I may have missed the contempt, but I assure you I've read as much as I can find on this subject. To date i'm not fully convinced of any argument. However I've seen very little evidence that leads me to think using the 1MB limit a good idea. It appears to be adding a new variable (a hard limit) where we have not previously needed one.  I see one argument for keeping it and that is to prevent 'centralization' although nowhere is this term quantified. Further, it also introduces a new centralization vector that previously didn't exist. ( namely increased fees.).

If you are going to argue keeping something reduces centralization, whilst introducing something else that increases centralization. The whole thesis breaks down, as it is self contradicting.

Now that keeping 1MB is ruled out, that leads to the conclusion; we must have a hard fork.  

Therefore if you put me on the spot today, i'd say removing the blocksize limit altogether ( in a gradual and predictable manner) Is the best solution.

Reading the paper by Peter R will help with the leap of faith, required here to trust in the free market. In my humble opinion that's what this whole debate boils down to. Attempting to control a vast and complex system of variables or simply letting supply and demand of the free market do what it does best.

There are more evidence from this workshop showing that the blockchain does not scale at current technology, not even to 2MB if you want to have some safety margin

So the scaling is definitely going to need another layer. If you study the current monetary system of US, Fedwire system that handles settlement between thousands of member banks in US have a transaction capacity of 4 TPS, exactly like bitcoin

A network of thousands of nodes that each works as a small bank-like institution sounds enough decentralized to me. There will be bitcoin bank failures and no one is going to bailout them, but that's also the reason people should only put coffee and beer money in a bitcoin bank

pretty sure smallblockist are the vocal minority.