Topic: Not Bitcoin XT - page 2. (Read 21883 times)

So ... you studied the copious amount of code changes in XT for your BIP101 decision? i.e. didn't base your choice on the BIP itself?

Bitcoin has always had the consensus changes done by the miners. Technically, nodes, exchanges and merchants have no direct control over the consensus. It has always been and will always be the miners who make the consensus changes because the consensus changes are in the blocks, which are made by miners. Exchanges, merchants, and users have indirect control by giving miners incentives to mine for one consensus change versus another because if miners end up on a fork that no one else uses, they lose money.

If the devs can't all agree to something, then I'd like it to be decided by some form of voting mechanism, and with actual code, not simply a proposal. I think it's silly to vote for BIP100 and consider those numbers meaningful when we don't even know exactly how it will work yet. BIP101 can also continue to get votes until the cutoff date, so you're making a premature claim. That being said, I'm not tied down to BIP101, you're just making the assumption that I am. BIP101 may also be the catalyst that gets a different proposal off the ground, so, even if it doesn't ultimately get the votes, it isn't a failure.

When did Bitcoin cede consensus changes to miners? Remember those other nodes, exchanges, merchants? They aren't going to be overridden so easily.

Call this what you want - at best, we have impasse.

Miners voting BIP100 (which does not exist in code)
Merchants voting for BIP101
Devs divided
Users undetermined

How is it that any 'side' has lost?

Translated:
Damn, we lost the vote by a land slide, OK now how else can we come up with some DIFFERENT criteria vs the one WE HAD, to make us win ...

Decided by which central authority would you happen to like that to be?

The BIP101 has already failed to get it's votes ... it's still under 1%
But you want everyone to be happy with the BIP101's choice about how blocks size should be controlled ...

Do you not see the whole problem with that statement?!?

BIP100 is already above 60%
https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/pools?resolution=24h

1) The focus on 32MB seems arbitrary and silly. XT (for example) has the 32MB limit removed - there's no reason core couldn't remove it at the same time as a block size hard fork.
2) More importantly, would you say that Bitcoin mining is suitably decentralized today? Last I checked 4 pools control 62% of bitcoin hashrate. I would not think that turning over block size limits to perhaps 2 companies which may not have overall community best interest in mind is a decentralization play.

It's going to take miners, users and industry to move forward - anything else won't work no matter what any particular group pushes for.

So, based on this, your perspective is that none of the proposals are any good, until they can handle going over 32MB?

No, you've just been comfortable with the past circumstances where the Core developers happened to all agree with regards to the changes to the code, within the context of *their* own central control. We were *always* going to reach a point where *their* central control failed, due to some important enough disagreement.



Gavin and Mike were talking about this issue long before the spam attacks.

Dramatic language here. The small block supporters can just as well be said to have an "agenda" to push, by continuing to distract with various arguments such that the status quo is maintained, and *nothing* gets done.

Even if it doesn't happen, it's moved the discussion forward, and motivated some individuals to actually produce various alternatives (though we *still* don't have actual code).

It also adds unnecessary complexity to the matter that inevitably will require further analysis to be done, instead of -- if 32MB is really the sticking point -- just doing a straight forward, algorithmic increase of some kind up to 32MB.

Bitcoin doesn't support greater than 32MB.
Once any suggestion hits the 32MB limit in the future, a hard fork will be required to go beyond it.

BIP101 is a centrally controlled, knee-jerk reaction to spam attacks created to push an agenda, with a low consensus that wont even happen.
75% ... and it's still less than 1% and has been that since it's voting inception.

If Bitmain switches over to BIP100 it will have 80% ... so I guess some people will then come up with some other criteria, different to it's current consensus specification, for accepting BIP101 that has effectively already failed, since they want it no matter what consensus they get.

BIP100 gives decentralised control of the block size up to 32MB, and indeed some time before the 32MB point (which according to BIP101's invalid extrapolation is ... 4.4 years away) some more discussion will prevail in a sane manner to deal with that 2nd hard fork and how to go beyond it.

To that point, in 1995 - this was cutting edge: http://winsupersite.com/article/commentary/blast-buying-computer-1995-141723

CPU - Pentium-90
Motherboard - PCI/ISA combo
Memory - 8 or 16 Mb
Hard Drive - 540 Mb or more
Monitor - 15” flat screen, .28 dot   pitch
Video Card - 1-2 Mb video RAM
double speed CD-ROM
16-bit Sound Blaster or 100% compatible
3-1/2” High Density Floppy Drive
MS-DOS 6.22 / Windows 3.11
expected cost: $3000-3800

Seriously - a 500mb HDD and 56K down / 33.6K up connection speeds - the above didn't even include a modem. In 2036, today's 4TB HDD, 8GB of memory and 25mb/s internet connection will seem equally pathetic as this PC does to us now.

8 GB would be in 2036. That's 21 *years* from now, people.

Source: https://bitcoinmagazine.com/21747/closer-look-bip100-block-size-proposal-bitcoin-miners-rallying-behind/


This sounds like a sort of Connecticut Compromise for Bitcoin, and we haven't even gotten to the Three-Fifths Compromise yet.

The "market of fee" can only develop if the demand (number of TXs) is higher than the probability that the miner get his block orphaned because too much bigger to spread correctly to the network.

There is already a natural limit on how much the block size can be big.

There is no need for virtual limits.

That's great and all, but my understanding is that that proposal isn't even fully fleshed out, and definitely not coded yet:

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/21747/closer-look-bip100-block-size-proposal-bitcoin-miners-rallying-behind/

How long will it take to gain consensus on even just how it's supposed to work? And, it only is supposed to go up to 32MB, so, using the small block proponents' own argument against you, will we not require yet another hard fork in the future once we approach 32MB?

He's not following them around; the "nerds and libertarians" are unavoidable in the Bitcoin space -- and many of them *are* doing it wrong.

What does that matter? Bitcoin != only miners. The likelihood that either of these proposals get adopted is no higher than it was a month ago.

Yep that's what will happen.
BIP100 is now 60% ... and hopefully 80% soon.
(XT BIP101 is still the same less than 1% it got from slush and only slush)
https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/pools?resolution=24h

Power lies with those who control the market, dictate the rules, charge the fees, and establish the infrastructure.

What I like about Bitcoin is that the distributed system of consensus pretty much eliminates the possibility to gain unfair advantages, unlike most other markets. Even core changes to the system abide by blockchain rules of consensus client wise.

As soon as we move this control away from the system itself, back in the hands of people, no matter how good the intentions are it will be corrupted like any other market. To me, the core idea is to rely on math rather than people, in a fair automated system.

That is the problem: libertarians are all for free markets, but have a totally wrong idea of what "free market" means.  

It is NOT a market free from control or regulations.  

There are several requirement for a market to be a "free market". Among them: there must be several suppliers, and consumers must be free to choose among them, or do without the service.  Consumers know the price charged by each supplier in advance, and, if they pay that price, they will get what they paid for.  Most importantly, suppliers can increase their production if they find it is in their interest, and there cannot be unfair barriers preventing new suppliers to come into the market, if they have the required capital and expertise.

A market can have a ton of regulations and paperwork and licenses and bizarre licensing and auditing requirements; but it can still be a free markets, as long as those conditions apply to all suppliers, and there are entrepreneurs who could meet them -- if they saw a profit in doing so.

The theory then says that free markets are good fro mankind, because, in a free market, the suppliers will enter or leave, and adjust their prices, until the price will be just high enough to cover the cost of efficient production plus a return on investment as good as any other activity -- that is, maybe 10 percent per year.  

The "fee market" would fail to meet all of these conditions.  To begin with, there is only one supplier -- the bitcoin network -- and all bitcoin holders are forced to use it.  The supplier would not be allowed to increase the supply, because the block size would be limited by the developers' decision.  The clients will not know the fee that is required to get confirmed in N minutes before they send their transaction. (They will only know it after N minutes have passed, by inspecting the blocks that have been mined.) No matter how much they pay, they cannot be certain to receive the timely service that they thought they were paying for.

Indeed, what the "fee market" advocates want is the exact opposite of a fRee market: they want to create a monopoly market, where the single supplier limits the supply to a level that will guarantee him maximum return on investment.  Which means much reduceed benefits to society and a much higher price than what a free market would provide.

The only free market that could exist in cryptocurrency would be the market for e-payments among competing cryptocoins.  But that does not seem to be free in the US either...
 

So you pretend to be a professor and a financial expert

There is no 'new management'

Miners have always controlled what goes into each block.
Obviously a lot more than you realise
How this has been done has regularly been brought up for 'discussion' over the last few years ...