Topic: Please do not change MAX_BLOCK_SIZE - page 5. (Read 13023 times)

We can put dollars in escrow, so I can pay you even if BTC goes to 0, which is very unlikely to happen even if all governments required node operators to be licensed.

Anyway, the idea that every government in the world would make laws against running a node without a license is preposterous. That really ends this debate. You're worrying about something that is barely any more likely than every government banning Tor exit nodes and encrypted traffic.

No. Because if I win, you won't be able to pay up anymore.

Plus, I don't bet on things which I am against, because this would create a conflict of interests inside me, and unlike some people, I do have problems with such.

Wery well, but first i need to find it...

EDIT:
I checked all of your posts in this topic and it is not there. Please point me in the right direction.

Glad to hear that, probably I missed your latest posts so I wasn't aware you guys have settled down.


Would you be so kind to comment on the solution I presented on MAX_BLOCK_SIZE issue?

You simply ignored me after I pointed out how silly your theory is. Here's my challenge once again:


So do you want to bet me?

The only way Bitcoin can be censored is if every government in the world requires a license to run a Bitcoin node. If this is wrong, then everything you're arguing is wrong.

We are back to the essential/contentwise discussion already (I'm done insulting piotr_n), so i don't understand what are you talking about.

@ShadowOfHarbringer I say to you one more time, please control yourself.

We have an issue here and is quite obvious. Piotr_n is probably right thinking there is an agenda behind the actions of Gavin and his team, and I think the same thing, but let's not derail the topic here. I actually think the programmer team is doing this not to lose any control left over the network, like pushing changes with new updates, or vetting changes that aren't aligned with their view of the network.

Here is an example of a pull request that has the potential to limit the spam transactions, so MAX_BLOCK_SIZE limit won't be reached before a couple of years. This consists of passing the control of the Bitcoin network to it's users resulting to be a controversial change in the dev team. and obviously was closed without a serious reason by Gregory Maxwell. Btw Gregory, please abstain yourself from commenting, you've done enough.

Add user interface to set dust limit and filtered addresses - https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/2383

Then Gavin and team start taking it seriously and implement a fixed minimum transaction in the code - https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bitcoin-developers-adding-minimum-transaction-output-size-to-gavin-197414

According to Gavin himself writing code for Bitcoin, and submitting a pull request, should be quite easy - https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/how-to-create-a-pull-request-4571 , but reality is quite different.

I would recommend Gavin take small vacancy so he can recover his strength.

Exactly - maybe he knows about pruning, but he chooses to forget just to keep the discussion going.

That's what i hate about some people - they choose to IGNORE SOME ARGUMENTS so they can "win" the discussion (or at least they think so).

I know, but please note that it does not imply at all that the value of our bitcoins would go down then - I'd rather say that it would go up, like BTCUSD rate went up on MtGox, after they seized their Dwolla account. And like drugs got more expensive, after they had been banned.

Moreover, a theory that the commerce is very afraid of the possibility, pretty well suits to a theory that the commerce might just corrupt the devs, so they would help to make bitcoin protocol as the government requires; centralized and with a built in censorship mechanisms.

He does know about pruning, because we were talking about it a few pages back, as well as mining optimization.


But, all this quickly and conveniently gets forgotten, then its 'data centres' all over again.

If govs are ever to attack bitcoin, they'll do it the way they're used to: banning their usage in commerce.
That's much more typical of governments, easier to enforce and more effective than trying to fight bitcoin on the technical realm.

Also, let's not forget that a single honest node can already spot fraud attempts like increasing the 21M BTC limit.

Oh, and let's not forget either that SPV has a high level of security too, even considering rogue full nodes. People speak as if SPV nodes would be completely vulnerable to rogue full nodes, but that's not the case. A rogue full node could potentially omit data to its SPV peers. But that risk can be considerably mitigated by just connecting to multiple full nodes: a single honest one in the bunch, and you'll receive your data.
A rogue full node cannot fake a transaction to a SPV node because he'd also need a fake Merkle root, what implies in a fake block header, what can only be obtained through real proof-of-work. If a node is willing to waste all that hashpower just to fake a transaction, why not do a Finney attack in the first place? That's more effective and works against other full nodes too.

WTF. Stop right there.

You clearly know nothing about anything. Have you heard of pruning ? If not, please educate yourself and come back here.

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Scalability
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/transaction-pruning-details-10663
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/ultimate-blockchain-compression-w-trust-free-lite-nodes-88208

When pruning is implemented, the only thing you need to run full node is a fast internet connection which is ALREADY CHEAP in many countries and will be WAAAAAYY cheaper in a few years.

Unless every government does it, it won't stop Bitcoin. It won't even disrupt transactions. This makes it even less likely for any given government to consider this option.


I would bet you a lot of money that every government will not require a license to run a Bitcoin node. There are countries where that type of restriction would be opposed by too much of the public.

Whether every government - this I don't know.
But I am sure the one you have over your head, would be one of the firsts..

EDIT:
But I think essentially, yes.
Because every government wants to have control over what you do with your money.
Because money is power and they surely prefer to keep the power for themselves.

You really think every government in the world is going to require a license to run a Bitcoin node? There will always be many countries with no restrictions on it.

Only because running a bittorrent client does not require you do own a data center.
But whoever had to have a data-center and was found supporting a P2P sharing, has likely been shut down already or will be shut down in a near future.
Not to mention that they even go after the poor people, just to make punishing them as an example to others.

No reason to assume that the same thing would not happen to bitcoin, if we let it happen by centralizing the infrastructure.
And the reason is always the same: they want to steal your money, though to make it sound right, they call it either a tax or a copyright fee.

Then we will run nodes:
- On I2P, TOR
- On Mesh networks
- On dedicated servers in countries that don't care about U.S. law
- In rented apartments/basements with fast internet connections in different countries

Possibilities are endless.


Of course they would... if they could.
For now, they cannot even stop Bittorrent/P2P and you expect them to stop Bitcoin ? Please...

So  what if one day the requirement becomes "you must have a government issued license to run a full node"?

You don't think that the governments would never do it to bitcoin, if they could, do you?

He means almost free.

Regarding centralization: the advantage Bitcoin has is that the blockchain is open source. This significantly reduces the costs of running the transaction database, since there is no need to prevent unauthorized access, no need for backups, no need for 99.99% uptime, and readily available mirrored databases to restore from in case there is a server failure. What this means is that the cost of running a node will never be that high, no matter how many transactions are processed a second, and there will always be many nodes active.

In other words, if high bandwidth is the only requirement of running a full node, there won't be a shortage of full nodes.

Actually, one more argument:

- Huge, full Bitcoin nodes can be run on dedicated servers in different countries. The servers are now extremely cheap and will be getting cheaper every year.