Topic: The Blocksize Debate & Concerns - page 7. (Read 11213 times)

Everyone can choose what code to run.   The miners are largely in control because the rest of the community
will probably follow their lead unless they do something highly irrational.  So far the miners have chosen
not to buck the status quo and follow the leadership of core.

I don't like what's going on with core/blockstream but all I can do is voice my opinion.
If I was a miner I would run bitcoin unlimited.

A while ago, coinbase and many other companies signed onto support 8mb blocks.
But that didn't get traction.  So, perhaps something else will come up.

I really do not approve of the centralized development.  I think
there shouldn't be any blocksize limit.  We can worry about
fees in a few decades.

You guys read reddit?  Looks like the HK consensus is DOA.  Bitcoin might take a hit.

Maybe we need a more transparent platform to publish our ideas on, to filter out trolls.

I have already proposed an idea:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/vote-with-your-bitcoins-voting-system-1384124

You're wrong RealBitcoin! Don't you realise, that when a handful of sockpuppets spend month after month repeating-repeating-repeating that 100% of Bitcoin users, miners and merchants all want 2MB2MB2MB, that means it's a fait accomplis!

We do get to vote on what happens to Bitcoin, and I vote for 5000 BTC, for me! Hurray democracy!

Good!

At least we have settled that issue.

Because sometimes I feel that bunch of socialists are invading bitcoin that want a 'democratization' of bitcoin, which is silly because it's not a political organization to begin with.

You can't democratically vote my money out of my pocket, that is called theft!

Nope, Satoshi actually left in 2011, shortly after Gavin Andresen announce his trip to Langley HQ (where your paycheck ultimately comes from, remember them?). Shortly after I got into Bitcoin, in fact.

"Centralisation of core" is a meaningless statement when you look at the facts. I gonna make this real simple, just for you:

Satoshi

was

there

when

the

dev

team

assumed

it's

structure.

It's

the

same

structure

all

open

source

software

projects

use.


And Adam Back has been in cryptocurrency a long time, he's cited as a reference in the Satoshi white paper (and is indeed a plausible candidate for actually being Satoshi)

satoshi left 2010..... yet

LukeJR - github joined october 2011
Gmaxwell - github joined june 2011
pieter wuille - github joined january 2011
adam back turned up 2013

just to name just a few..

blockstream was formed 2013-2014

meaning satoshi didnt witness the centralization of bitcoin core.

have a nice day

And so you spend all day quoting him for what reason? Near every major Core team member worked alongside Satoshi for several years.


Satoshi literally watched that happen. Are you deaf or dumb?


You may have to endeavour a little harder lol. duhhhhhhhhhh


Bad precedent? Like the half a dozen+ soft forks that have already been successfully activated? Yeah


Why don't you start the altcoin motherfucker? There's nothing wrong with CPU led consensus, you just don't care about the fact that it is not the only factor when it doesn't suit your argument. Because you do actually understand that POW is not the only mechanism determining which version of the software prevails on the network, you've proved you already understand that.

And miners could force your 2MB2MB2MB fork also. Interesting how that hasn't happened, huh? Despite the supposed "reward"

Well, ponzi enthusiasts and sig spammers don't make decisions here, it isn't a democracy. The decision making process is outlined here:



If some don't like a decision, they can dump. If others like a decision, they can buy. These are the indirect economic incentives I'm talking about.

I`m not talking about the miners, althought their interest might not always coincide with bitcoins especially when they will get political pressure on them...

I`m talking about the usual folks that want to earn 9000% Returns in 1 day from cloud mining. These people might not care about bitcoin's long term, and not even hold significant amount of bitcoins to be relevant.

Remember bitcoin is a financial organization, not a political one, money talks here not empty words.

Satoshi left a long time ago. Feel free to cite where he said development should be done by one insular group of people and in one repo. I'll endeavor to not return your childish insults in kind.


So, hordes of zombie nodes that don't upgrade and no longer verify all the activity on the Bitcoin network (and don't know anything has changed) are a positive. OK. I disagree. Soft forks are done by miners only and circumvent the consent of all node operators, a bad precedent, IMO. Especially if you are so "concerned" about the immutability of the protocol.


Miners could change the 21 million coin limit, they would face serious economic consequences for that. They could also increase the throughput of Bitcoin, which they might be rewarded for. I get that you don't like the white paper's definition of CPU led consensus, why not start an altcoin that does away with it in reality, rather than just in your mind?


The miners aren’t idiots, they know what a hash is, they understand how Bitcoin works, and they have millions of $ of investment riding on them making decisions that are in the best interest of Bitcoin, measured in exchange rate and utility.

Some devs, the Blockstream ones specifically, have millions of $ of other peoples’ investment riding on them creating an environment in which their products (side chains, payment contracts, etc) are in demand. An artificially constrained on-chain environment directly benefits them, it’s not hard to understand.

This is the reason satoshi described consensus the way he did in the white paper. The miners interests are aligned perfectly with the success of Bitcoin. Satoshi could have included “a strong consensus of the most technically knowledgable developers” in the white paper, he didn’t, and I don’t think it was an accident.

I've literally told you once already: Satoshi presided over the dev team that built up around him, and never indicated in any way that he disapproved, or that it contradicted his ideas or feelings on the ideal way to structure development.

When you've already been told, but you keep repeating the same nonsense expressed slightly differently, you've gotta be either stupid or trolling. Care to enlighten us all as to which?


Uh, because Segwit balances that load unevenly? Hence Segregated?



The 21 million money supply limit is also a centrally planned, perfectly inelastic demand curve. The free market principles are what Bitcoin is supposed to manifest itself as after it's coded and compiled, not within the coding process itself.

You're arguing for everyone to try their hand at being a crypto-central bank: guess what would happen with 7 billion different crypto-coins on the market? The best design would bury all the others. And you'd presumably start bleating: "But muh free-markets! Let's go back to a 7 billion person commitee again!!!"

I agree, this is what i described in the OP





True but you have to admit that they are the worlds best experts on bitcoin, nobody knows bitcoin better than them.

Most people here dont even know what a hash is, let alone decide rationally about very complex tech stuff. Democracy won't work for bitcoin, it will end in disaster.

lol, for scenario, read "fantasy land"

Software always changes, Franky, Gavin Andresen will tell you that. You're an idiot. Give up.

There are many others i read about, but i dont know all of them, i`m not a tech expert.


Softfork is not as invasive, and has far less power over bitcoin.


I dont see a problem here, the Core team so far has lead bitcoin very well. You cant just have the "people" vote on things they dont understand, you need experts, specialists, engineers , PhD's to lead in such a technological enviroment.

You cannot have babysitters or bartenders vote on bitcoin's technical roadmap

Miners must take the wishes and interests of node operators, merchants, and exchanges into account when making their decisions. That was the genius element of satoshi’s idea, it uses economic incentives [even indirect ones] to govern itself and grow, not an infallible priesthood of devs and their friend who holds key domain names. Satoshi didn’t include PoS type holder voting because it isn’t necessary, miners are rewarded or punished by the market for their decisions. Holders, merchants, node operators are important, by proxy, because they interact with the exchange rate.


If he’s right (and not just lying to suit himself)… then why is he full steam ahead with segwit, which will take total potential data load per block to 4MB?


I don’t actually care who the code comes from. I care that Bitcoin isn’t turned into some “proof of unanimous dev-consensus” coin. I would like the producers of block space, the miners, to determine their own production levels based on their own supply curve and the demand curve they face. Block space has been turned into a perfectly inelastic product via a centrally planned production quota, in stark contrast to the free market principles upon which Bitcoin was designed.

same can be said for softforks


its only dangerous if one group of devs says no to cause contention by making it no longer a unanimous change by everyone... not due to any rational reason of what the users want. but purely about keeping a "political" grip of control of what direction only they want to take bitcoin.

in short.. if core released a 2mb or BU codebase.. then they could just let the users decide to take it up or not.. because all other implementations will work together
but by not releasing it they are limiting options and causing the controversy that actually makes a hard fork dangerous. and instead wanting to add code that takes bitcoin in a different direction and blackmail and bribe people into accepting core as the dominant central repo..

hard forks are only controversial because core is making it so

"Also the network propagation time is also problematic" is not a hf problem.

"And many other", please tell me a few.

There isn't a consensus (for now). And also there are other risks as well, like the all nodes uppgrading to similar client, which exposes the network to 0 day exploits.

Also the network propagation time is also problematic.

And many other.

It's a collection of multiple issues that comes up when you talk about hardfork.

If there is consensus, the risk is small.

Call me dishonest or ignorant if you like.
I thought you were calling for calm?