Topic: question - page 3. (Read 5016 times)

ahhh so who's the market makers again? WE ARE

so dont mind this ph0rk, it wont happen. and if big centralized miners tries.. they'll loose huge money.

Miners will go where the money is. In other words, which coin market makers will choose.

If you lose the miners your pretty coins go by bye.

So, I read all your posts in this thread again and you didn't give anything besides a pretty vague theoretical construct, that isn't based on anything(the very point where I entered the discussion).
So, I accept, that you are like many other people in here are just not willing to give answer, more likely use ad hominem or trying to look smart by starting some stupid meta discussion without link to the actual topic  and that further discussion is pretty much pointless.

It's explained perfectly adequately a short distance back in this thread. I'm not going to do it again just so you can feel like people value your audience.

You still haven't answered me why. All you do is dodging my question and writing comments without any content.

So, this quote also applies to you:

Well, you'll find that not everyone has the patience to wait for it to click for you, but suffice it to say: increasing the block size too much will cause fees to collapse. The author of the BIP I am opposing will tell you the same thing.

In addition, simply saying something doesn't make it true, no matter how many times you repeat it. My analysis is also based on observations made both in the past and the present; I haven't once claimed to observe events in the future (or implied it). It'd be an impressive feat if it was possible though lol

His prediction is based on the past and present. I know, that this is not an optimum, but it is still better, than what you have presented so far.
I just don't get, why anybody would think that fees would go down, when blocksize increase(besides "supply and demand" which is an oversimplification of how economies work)

It's pretty obvious that his projections are based on actual observations while yours are based on nothing tangible but doubtful suppositions.

Unfortunately, you're wrong too. uxgpf is describing future projections also. All his statements are predicated with logical conjunctives like "if", "will be" and "would be". And he doesn't state what his projections are based on either (I would say that for us both we are using a combination of economic and systems theory)

You are describing a theoretical construct, while uxgpf describes (current) reality. So, it's pretty arrogant to tell him, that he is wrong.
You state a theory as a fact, so you don't have to describe what your theory is based on. It at least doesn't seem to be based on current events.

Likewise. I'm not a self-identifying libertarian, but like you, I respect the aspects of that ideology that make sense to me. Some libertarians fetishise the doctrine, their arguments about abortion and punishing crime are amongst them IMO.


I've heard people levelling that accusation, but I have yet to see anyone explicitly advocating for making Bitcoin any kind of exclusive club, and it feels like I've seen at read it all (although that's just a feeling, probably not the case). Demonstrate that such a contingent exists, and I would take that line of argument more seriously.

Based on what they've been saying, it seems to be the root source of their stance.  They have concerns about government control over money and see Bitcoin as a useful tool in counteracting it.  I can empathise with that.  I certainly can't argue they're wrong to think in that way.  Bitcoin is incredibly useful in that regard.  But where I draw the line is when they decide to get greedy and try to steer us down a path where this benefit would be limited to the early adopters and everyone else should be forced out.  Some are clearly more honest than others when this intent is raised and questioned, but it seems to be the prevailing cause of contention.  Half the drama we've seen in the forum lately would never have occurred if a small but noisy minority weren't pushing for that goal by any means necessary.

Some do advocate for an infinite limit, but they're in the same category as the 1MB'ers IMO (i.e. not credible insignificant minority). 8MB/BIP101 won't cause heinous problems tomorrow, but it's the progression of that schedule that will really cause issues (as you concede).

Looking in the Bitcoin github, there's an effort under way to develop a specific test harness for the testnet network, in order to simulate these various schemes and schedules on an actual network. It will be interesting to see the results once that effort is ready to conduct the tests.


That's similar to my position also. I support an algorithmically determined blocksize limit, but sadly we don't have any complete proposals yet. Greg Maxwell and Mark Friedenbach have their FlexCap scheme floated, upal's Dynamic Resizing concept is out there, and I think Meni Rosenfelds's idea has been a little neglected (he tabled it early on in the debate, so it's understandable).

The problem is that the code for these proposals doesn't exist yet. But it will emerge, the FlexCap idea will almost certainly receive a coded implementation.



That sounds like a sensible position (although I don't understand the political allusion, libertarianism doesn't contain any economic or computer science theory, those being the disciplines that pertian to the blocksize debate).

8Mb block limit in its own isn't a huge thread towards decentralisation or bitcoin. I'm hesitant when it comes to increasing the limit eightfold in an instance though, I also don't like BIB101's approach about the cap doubling.

Funnily enough, that's why no one is saying let's get rid of the cap entirely.  No one's saying let's have 10GB blocks tomorrow.  Everyone who isn't a perma-1MBer knows that the limit needs to be raised, but everyone seems to have a different idea on how much of an increase is safe.  I honestly don't see 8MB as a threat to decentralisation.  I don't see how anyone could.  I'm not entirely convinced about the doubling part being needed yet, but we don't necessarily have to allow the doubling to happen.  It can be prevented with a soft fork if it isn't needed.  All things considered, BIP101 isn't the catastrophe some make it out to be.  It certainly doesn't guarantee a future of 8GB blocks and half a dozen nodes running the whole network, no one in their right mind would allow it to come to that.  But if the miners aren't showing much support for BIP101, I'll go along with that.  Their preference seems to be BIP100 at the moment, but there are justified concerns that they could choose to enforce a 1MB limit forever if that's what they deemed most profitable for them.  What would be beneficial to the network as a whole isn't taken into consideration at all and it involves placing trust in an entity to set a variable which dictates how the network is run.  I would feel much more comfortable if this was done algorithmically, like just about everything else in Bitcoin.

More than ever, I'm convinced that the answer lies somewhere between BIP100 and upal's BIP1xx (but more towards the latter).  A balance between the two is absolutely 100% reasonable and the only people who would still take issue with it would be the ones who think Bitcoin's sole purpose is to benefit a small minority of ultralibertarian crackpots.

drop btc price to 50$ for 3 months and you will see why miners are important!

you cant have a good house without a strong foundation!

Wrong. Some scarcity in blocks, and some disparity in the fees paid is essential to maintain a healthy economic relationship between the miners and the users. More tx volume just recreates today's dynamics on a larger scale. As the block reward subsidy diminishes, the extent to which that subsidy was distorting the fee market will become increasingly more apparent. When the block reward approaches zero, having a functional fee market in place is the only way of incentivising miners to mine at all.

Treating fees as "one-fee-fits-all" doesn't take account of the economic reality. Some transactions must confirm ASAP, for a wide variety of reasons. Others can be afforded hours, days or perhaps even longer than that.


Again, you're speaking as if every fee will be pushed up to the same level; there is, and always will be, a range of fees that can be usefully applied in order to target the confirmation time the user needs for a given transaction. A functional fee market will make instant confirms more expensive; they should be, because instant confirms are in high demand.

Bitcoin Core wallet has only recently introduced the "smart fee" feature that helps the user choose the right fee for the confirmation time they want (there is an API for other software to use the smart fee feature too). A software feature that was written by the designer of BIP101, no less.

I don't know how it would change the fee market.. There hasn't been any scarcity in blocks before so fees would probably stay quite similar to what they are today. If adoption continues to increase, the total of collected fees will be higher as there would be more transactions per block.


One possibility is that increase in adoption and advancement of technology will balance that or even make number of nodes increase. We can't know for sure.

What I know is that letting blocks to saturate will make the fees rise rise and will make bitcoin less inclusive. It will be less appealing/useless for many markets/use cases thus stiffle the growth. Everyday users will find it less useful and investors don't want to invest in niche product with no growth potential.

If you're not so sure about that, then lets try to keep 1 MB limit for few years just to see what happens. It would be an interesting experiment and surely would not kill bitcoin...just push it back few years at worst.

Maybe we come up with a BIP 102 and compromise by including pieces from both?