Topic: So who the hell is still supporting BU? - page 12. (Read 29824 times)

Thank you Pete R.

But what of this article?
They are toting coming upto more nodes available then bitcoin core.
So what does it offer to the network in terms of benefits?
This is all that the one's sending and receiving bitcoins really care about after all.
That is their bottom line.

price of tech:
bitcoin 2009 stats could easily have run on Raspberry Pi v1
bitcoin 2013 stats could easily have run on Raspberry Pi v1
bitcoin 2016 stats could easily have run on Raspberry Pi v1

raspberry Pi v3 is several times faster, bigger. so natural growth of bitcoin can run on a Raspberry Pi v3

telecom industry have a 5 yarr plan
5G mobile network
Fibre optic land line

people change their computers on average ever 2-5 years

technology is not the issue.
bitcoin wont be "gigabyte blocks by midnight", instead it will be hundred of megabyts in DECADES

we are not going to jump to "one world currency" or "excell beyond visa" overnight. it will be a NATURAL scalable amount over DECADES.

we should not halt onchain scaling out of fear of onchain scaling.
thats like shooting self in foot intentionally purely out of fear one day you might shoot self in foot.
thats like purposefully walking into a car out of fear one day you might have a car accident.

instead we need to realise what is a safe way to do things and look how to look at what to do to stay safe.

EG if nodes have a 'speedtest' built in. they can flag what they can cope with.. which then can show what the network can cope with. and the network moves with what the majority of nodes can cope with. thus no worries of outscaling nodes. because the nodes are displaying the limits.

it takes away 3dev's being king to spoon feed what they "think" the world can cope with and instead the nodes control it.

I see we agree. Such is not an inevitable conclusion.


This is in no way 'a weak argument'. Trustlessness is central to Bitcoin's USP. For everything else, there is Visa.


Here you argue against yourself. You argue that nodes not being incentivized is a fatal flaw. I point out that implementing a full node is relatively negligible for anyone who already owns a computer and an internet connection. Your rebuttal is that third-worlders only make $2/day? Such a economic citizen is unable to overcome this financial barrier no matter the incentive to run a node.

So-called 'small block supporters'* have an annoying habit of switching to some other argument when asked to provide evidence supporting their previous argument.

* The SegWit Omnibus Changeset allows blocks as large as 4MB.

And their claims are often half-truths that lead to agreement from the great unwashed, despite irrelevancy.

Case in point: of course upstream bandwidth is important. I don't think anyone disputes this. But what evidence suggests that upstream bandwidth is either a constraint today, or the upstream bandwidth will become a constraint tomorrow?

In an era where bandwidth providers are aggressively building out to accommodate full-rate 4K video bandwidth to every home, bitcoin node traffic -- even if it were to be to every home -- is negligible.

You still dont get it.

Even if this DCG would hypothetically go away this night, what would change tomorrow? Nothing.

The flaw was caused by satoshi, he designed a flawed system, and failed to account for the possible attack vectors and flaws that might arise in the future.

While I don't blame him, he still did us a great favor by inventing BTC, we should also not make him an idol.

He was not perfect, and either we resolve the flaws in Bitcoin, or Bitcoin will die slowly, and that would be a very sad thing.

Don't get me wrong ,I want Bitcoin to succeed. But do others want Bitcoin to succeed as well?


For now, but a disease left untreated, might cause complications later on, metaphorically.





Ah c'mon that is a weak argument that I have heard a million times.

Look, nobody cares about trustlessness, other than the VIP bitcoiners who have upwards of 10,000BTC.

Most folks just want a quick and easy way to send money.

If people would really care about trustlessness, then there would exist no banks today 


Just a reminder that Bitcoin adoption is currently growing in 3rd world countries, not 1st world.

For some reason 1st worlder are perfectly happy with WU, Paypal and their banks.

And in the 3rld world, your daily wage might be only 2$. So keep that in mind.

I was talking about upstream bandwidth growth, not total bandwidth growth. Unfortunately, upstream bandwidth growth seems to be much slower than downstream growth.

In the document I linked (from 2011) downstream bandwidth growth was about 50% a year - your documents and Nielsen's Law confirm this trend is, approximately, continuing until today. But upstream growth was then expected at 10% annually, with a slow increase in the last years covered - so I was estimating 10 to 20%. As I was told by small-block supporters, upstream bandwidth is equally important than downstream for the Bitcoin network to work well and so it is the real bottleneck for the Bitcoin block size.

Well, that is an interesting hypothesis that seems perfectly plausible.

Either way, the lack of direct monetary renumeration for node operation has not so far proven to be a fatal flaw within Bitcoin.

Well, that's the lowest estimate of internet bandwidth growth I've seen.

Meanwhile, the bandwidth available to The Bitcoin Network has increased by ~70% in the last year: http://hackingdistributed.com/2017/02/15/state-of-the-bitcoin-network/

Another data point would be Nielsen's Law: "Users' bandwidth grows by 50% per year (10% less than Moore's Law for computer speed). The new law fits data from 1983 to 2016." https://www.nngroup.com/articles/law-of-bandwidth/

Or this academic paper, which looks at separate segments, and notes that growth has fallen from a 20th century 'mere doubling of rate per year' to 20%-30% in industrialized countries, and 65% cellular bandwidth growth worldwide. http://www.dtc.umn.edu/~odlyzko/doc/webtraffic.pdf

Or NetworkWorld, which measures a 32% CAGR in bandwidth growth, and expects this trend to continue: http://www.networkworld.com/article/2187538/tech-primers/exponential-bandwidth-growth-and-cost-declines.html

if you start paying nodes.

this will cause a fee hike to try to 'incentivise' nodes while keeping the miners mining

all that will happen is 10 people running 1000 nodes each to get 1000x the income of just running one node.

this will cause node centralization (pooling nodes/node farms/sybil attack)
this will dilute how much each node receives because the share needs to be split by 10k nodes.
this will cause ethical node users(1node/head) not receiving much/anything
snowball effect causing the opposite of the hope

BU is Bitcoin Unlimited. It is a fork of the Satoshi client that makes a fix to permanently optimize the maximum block size limit.

https://www.bitcoinunlimited.info/

While that would be a good idea, that is unfortunately the way Bitcoin currently operates. Working now, and ofr the foreseeable future. There seems to be no fatal flaw in this.


Not exactly. If you don't run a node, you are incapable of making trustless transactions on the blockchain. It is not altruism that causes one to run a node, it is enlightened self-interest.
 

Expensive servers? Don't be ridiculous. I run a full node on a computer I bought years ago for under 0.3 BTC ($300). While using that computer for other tasks as well. Sure, at some point in the future I may need to upgrade. But 0.3 BTC is not an inordinate amount to expect someone to spend to be a first-class member of the network.

My proposal would be to:
- just accept Segwit in the following months (~1,7 MB)
- but guarantee the miners a block size doubling in 2018 (~3,4 MB), perhaps this is enough to convince enough miners for a compromise (that is approximately what the Roundtable Consensus of 2016 said)
- and from 2019 adjust the maximal value by the average worldwide upstream bandwidth growth. That's about 10-20% per year - this estimation being based on this document (already a little bit old, but should not have changed that much) which suggests a 10% yearly increase between 1980 and 2010 and then a slightly accelerating rate.

And in that entire tirade, your only argument is 'someone else called it a problem'.

Fine. I don't need to convince you. Market advantage for me.

Incidentally, I already laid out the rationale in our exchange, for anyone willing to actually read what I wrote.

Something MUST change.

1MB is dumb, just doubling it is dumb.  I'd go for a linear progression as moores law would smash it but non the less something must change.

hint: DCG
http://dcg.co/network/
"DCG sits at the epicenter of the emerging ecosystem"

to name just a few:
btcc
blockstream
bloq(gavin and garzik)
bitpay
coinbase
coindesk
circle

yes i should be attacking DCG.. but its blockstream that has the biggest tie to bitcoin code changes (followed by BTCC advocating those changes)
they are the front line of the corporate centralist agenda

Im curious from what is BU can anyone tell me about it?

It's not blockstream, it's the entire centralized system.

• First it was Satoshi (with his flawed paper)
• Then the MT Gox incident
• Then it was the MIT influence with the devs
• Then it was the Bitcoin Foundation corruption allegations
• Then it was the countless centralized exchange hacks.
• Then it was the mining power centralization in 1 geopolitical region.
• And now it's Blockstream OR Bitcoin Unlimited (both centralized).

Do you see the pattern? Don't you get it, it's not 1 instance, it's the entire path that Bitcoin took.

It's centralization, in whatever form it is today. You claim Blockstream is the problem, but maybe in 5-10 years it will be another company.

Regardless, the route BTC is taking is not the correct one.

Centralization will destroy Bitcoin.

^ defending blockstream yet again ^

ok based on the main people CODING LN - https://github.com/ElementsProject/lightning/graphs/contributors
rusty russell(200k+ lines)
Cdecker(5k+ lines)
[not including half a dozen small spell checkers]

LN: rusty russell - blockstream employee
LN: cdecker - blockstream employee
core: gmaxwell - blockstream BOSS

gmaxwell CTO = rusty russells BOSS
adam back CEO = boss of the boss


LN is a BLOCKSTREAM project based on ELEMENTS (hint is in the url above)
segwit is a BLOCKSTREAM project based on ELEMENTS

trying to assume that LN is independent, trying to assume segwit is independent, trying to assume core is independent. is your delusion
its like your trying to fool the world by saying that Apple watch is not an apple product. by showing that the apple watch is made in a different office.. (yet reality is that the office and staff are managed by the same company)

---

one thing i have noticed.
very recently the 'manager' of core has shifted from a blockstream BOSS to a blockstream 'contractor'


was


but still does not mitigate the blockstream control of core AND LN

It's just intuition for now, we shall see if it becomes reality, in the following years.




Well damn, you can read my mind 

I am not necessarly a Dash fan, but I have seen some positive things there that BTC is lacking.

For now I can't decide which one is better, because BTC has the obvious security advantage. But that might change in the following years, if BTC is unable to evolve.

Segwit or not, there may come a point when an upgrade will be crucial, and if BTC will be unable to evolve, that will be it's certain demise.




We shall see that in 5-10 years. It's a slow process of decay.

Banks used to be decentralized before central banks. But slowly it became this centralized monolithic financial system.

I'm afraid the same fate awaits BTC too.

BU supporters' understanding of consensus systems in general is completely wrong, not just decentralised ones. I don't know why; it's a simple concept: it means that several independent implementations of a program given the same input data will give the same output, and those that give different results will automatically be known to be wrong. In the specific case of Bitcoin, it means that given multiple conflicting transaction chains, of which only one of them can be valid, all Bitcoin nodes everywhere will always agree on which chain is valid.

BU's so-called "emergent consensus" is not a consensus system of any kind. It explicitly allows nodes to disagree on which of multiple conflicting chains is valid, and it's trivial for malicious miners to force a chain split among disagreeing nodes to allow double-spending. It's not even fair to call this an "attack" since this catastrophic breakdown of consensus is by design. Anyone supporting BU deserves to lose their coins, and I think they're likely to.