Topic: question - page 4. (Read 5016 times)

I understand how miner vote. Minus the random part of block finding isn't that the same as 1MHZ 1vote?
The more hashing power, the more block you find ...

So to come back to my exemple of a different system but as arbitrary
Vote take place on DAY 1.
All the coin that didn't move before DAY 1 can vote ( ie you can't send a coin from different address to vote multiples times
Address A sign a particular message about the blocksize  "i vote for blocksize 2MB" (at the cost of a transaction fee+1satoshi)
Address B that receive btc on day 1 ( possibly from a previous vote) can't vote.

Then to know what the bitcoins holders want you simply sum up all the satoshi on address A at the voting time (at the begining of DAY1) and of all the other address that vote for 2MB...

This will probably never be accepted but is it so much different of BIP 100 system?
Instead of giving power to one, you give it to another...

I foresee a similar future for Gavincoin service providers!

I find it incredibly unconvincing that Google, for instance, have ever turned a profit. They've amassed alot of useful information though.

That doesn't sound half wrong to me. That's the Silicon Valley motto no? "Lose money, gain users!" 

Mining basically becomes less and less economically viable over time under BIP101. Mining would need subsidising somehow, and so only those that can afford to do that will mine (i.e. losing money). The most concerning outcome would be large miners staying in the industry only to maintain control of the hashrate.

There's no indicator that an 8Mb limit could be of use at the moment. One big argument for raising the limit was that more transactions per second could start being handled. Which in theory could become possible under a larger block size limit but if you think about it, even right now bitcoin isn't making full use of the 1Mb limit. Increasing the block size limit to a small number at first could help study the plausible effects such a change could have with minimum risk. If you look at it carefully, the Chinese pools have been Vetoing Mike hearn's proposals for months now. BIP101 came out with 8Mb blocks after pools accounting for ~ 60% of the hashrate at the time united against the then 20Mb blocks proposal. Now, as BIP100 started becoming more popular, more miners are showing support towards it since it's considered a less radical and more modest proposal by far. Prior to showing support for BIP100, most of those pools were showing support for 8Mb blocks, but not BIP101. It now seems like instantly increasing the block size limit to 8Mb doesn't look as attractive to miners.

In short, an 8Mb block limit could:

• Have devastating effects on the fee market

Since there's more space in each block, this space is now less valuable, fees might not be zero, but they'll be lead down to the minimum and competitiveness for fast transactions will be dead.

• Bring nodes offline and make pools/miners less reliable

The change would increase bandwidth consumption as well as HD space required to run a full node. There are many nodes that run on non-optimized hosts, if they suddenly start sucking up more of the bandwidth and HD space it's safe to assume that many will go offline. Also, pools running on weak networks would be more prone to orphaned blocks because of the blocks being harder to propagate.

I've seen people arguing that in case the block limit was raised, it wouldn't be put to use immediately as well that it would handle transaction floods better. But what if it destroys the fee market on the moment it's implemented? Sending out a meaningless transaction would now be cheaper. Plus, if nodes and miners were available exclusively to those with unlimited hardware and bandwidth, centralisation is unavoidable.

Or we could just stop playing games and you could tell us exactly what increase in blocksize you would be comfortable with.  If, as I suspect, the answer is zero, please then admit that your position is untenable.  Because even if you do support the notion of forcing a significant number of transactions off-chain via lightning network or something similar, LN itself still needs a larger blocksize to function.  A larger blocksize is almost unavoidable and none of your arrogant "only I'm smarterer enough to have a valid opinion" troll BS is going to change that.  Introducing LN to the wider Bitcoin ecosystem is also a much larger change than a moderate blocksize increase.  The effects on security and the network with LN are also unknown and is also yet to receive any legitimate testing because it doesn't exist yet.

You can play the "slippery slope" card that it will lead to centralisation, but the rest of us can play the same slippery slope card that a permanent 1MB blocksize will lead to an elitist, niche safe-haven that only benefits early adopters.  One way or another, it's almost inevitable the blocksize is increasing because the pressure for it to happen will never go away unless another solution is found.  A small handful of people who think that Bitcoin is here solely to benefit them and them alone have no way of stopping a global populace looking for an alternative to the corrupt banking system.  The numbers are simply against you.  You can either contribute to the blocksize increase in a constructive fashion, or just keep acting like a belligerent troll (but we've already got iCEBREAKER for that, so it seems a tad redundant).

Most of us would now like to have a sensible discussion on where to strike the balance between decentralisation and capacity because we recognise that both are important.  If you want to keep having the same tired old conversation about how decentralisation is the only thing that's important (because it provides tremendous benefit to you) and capacity is somehow irrelevant (because it doesn't benefit you), go talk to some people who actually want to listen to it.  
 

I thank you for the amusement you've generated for me today, and will happily do so.

It's clear that I've lost patience with your dishonesty, so no. Respect my wishes and fuck off.

I don't suppose you can quote this mythical second question, can you?

You asked 2 questions and pretended I provided the answer to the one that suited you best. Hence your arguments and you are a literal disgrace, and so any perceived ad hominem is addressing the meta-argument accurately. Fuck off.

Ad hominem so quickly?  You need to pace yourself.

I asked only one question. "Can you give a rational argument against immediately raising the block size cap to 8MB?"

One that you still haven't answered.

What are you basing the statement on? We currently have a 1MB cap, yet we do not have 1MB blocks.  Raising the cap has no causative effect on the block size - it will only go up when the volume of transactions increase enough.  Speaking as one full node operator, I can say that the incremental cost is entirely trivial, and my node will remain.

I asked only about a change to 8MB.  Further changes would have to be approved on their own merits.

Actually, it's well tested.  When I first started using Bitcoin, it had no cap (or actually had a 32MB cap due to code limitations).  

You asked two questions, I answered a different question to the answer which you're attributing it.

You people are a fucking disgrace

If you wanna play this game I can: it will effectively retire a number of nodes from the network. It is a slippery road opening the door for more unadvised decision encouraged by populist movements. The effects on securty and the network are unknown and have yet to receive any legitimate testing.

There are plenty of arguments really.

That says about all I need to hear to understand your position. Thanks!

That's terrifying, your grasp of the facts is poor on the issue we are discussing at present.


I read it several times; it contains two propositional statements that are logically identical, and a conditional statement where you suggest that the two propositions depend on one another? That's the literal definition of a tautology, and no, there is no "actual" answer to such nonsense.

I answered one interpretation of the question - the literal one.  Like it or not, it is a fact that this distinction is misunderstood by some. I'm happy that you're not one of them, but if you take a moment to review my post history, you'll find more than one instance where my clarification on this issue (block size vs block size cap) has resulted in a 'thank you' from those who had not understood the distinction.


I think you should read my statement again if you believe it to be a tautology.

Shall I take your lack of reply to my question as a "no, I can't give a rational argument against that"?  Or will you give an actual answer?

Do you normally handle disclarity like that? By replying as if you knew exactly what was intended?


Tautology alert.

It's hardly semantic, and I'm not at all sure what he meant. Many of the arguments against raising the cap only make any sense if understood as an argument against raising the block size.

Let's start simple. Can you give a rational argument against immediately raising the block size cap to 8MB?