The hardfork will make Gavincoin plummet to zero - page 2.

Pecunia non olet

full member

Activity: 882

Merit: 102

PayAccept - Worldwide payments accepted in seconds

Quote from: sgbett on February 16, 2015, 01:57:58 PM

You have a big block so that there are more transactions, so even though the individual transaction fee is still low, the *total* of those fees is sufficient incentive to miners.

At first I thought like you did, then I realised how simple the answer actually was.

For this to be true those transactions need to take place on the netowrk. That was the point of the thread, i think: they won't take place on the network as it's inaccessible for people with low bandwidth or HDstore aswell as unattractive to people who are interested in a decentralised network or want to run full nodes (most who know about the tech will want to have that).

So the gavinfork builds on the presumption massadoption will happen, which it won't with this kind of recource use.

So what you get is an unsustainable network in the long run. You will be forced to either scale down, enforce fees with central planning (communist style) or raise the 21 mln max coins to keep the network running in the end of the day.
But before you meet that dead end most people with a brain (and money) will have moved to a more sustainable and viable coin or actually back to the integer Mpcoin chain we use today (in case they ever left it).

Bitcoin can be scaled, but it can't be scaled ahead of demand or it'll be unsustainable. Fact.

Miners will not even accept the fork as it robs them from future income. So there will also be no consensus in the network. All this fork does is make look Gavin and his cheerleaders like complete idiots and undermine investors confidence.

sgbett

legendary

Activity: 2576

Merit: 1087

Quote from: shmadz on February 15, 2015, 12:23:56 PM

Quote from: DeathAndTaxes on February 15, 2015, 09:34:25 AM

Quote from: shmadz on February 15, 2015, 02:39:24 AM

The reason for limiting the size of the block is to maintain the incentive for the miners.

No that is a purpose some people have invented after the fact. The purpose of the 1MB temporary restriction was to limit the potential damage caused by bloating or spam attacks. For essentially its entire history Bitcoin has effectively had an unlimited block size. If the total txn volume is 100KB and the block size is 1MB then the block size has no effect on fees at all. People paid fees to get timely inclusion in a block. We have never had a period of time where there were more txns than potential block space.

Sure, but what happens when the block reward is cut to 12.5? Or 6? Or 3?

I'm just saying that mining must be financially incentivized to act in a manner that protects the integrity of the blockchain, otherwise the whole thing will fall apart.

You have a big block so that there are more transactions, so even though the individual transaction fee is still low, the *total* of those fees is sufficient incentive to miners.

At first I thought like you did, then I realised how simple the answer actually was.

thelibertycap

full member

Activity: 211

Merit: 100

Quote from: sgbett on February 06, 2015, 07:07:50 PM

There is only one coin, Bitcoin. There will be an update of the software, it will be well telegraphed, everyone will upgrade in plenty of time.

I am sorry Sir but for the meeting of central banks you can try next door, these are cryptoanarchists that think different.

I guess cryptoanarchists will have to support other real fungible digital cash/altcoin in the end anyway and leave the bitcoin to provide VISA scale transactions.

I am 50/50 on the fork. There might be no reason to resist regulating and centralizing bitcoin and supporting the Gavin's fork so bitcoin can go mainstream quickly. I mean why get attached to Bitcoin so much when we have so many altcoins, just pick the right one that suits you.

ajareselde

legendary

Activity: 1722

Merit: 1000

Satoshi is rolling in his grave. #bitcoin

Quote from: shmadz on February 15, 2015, 12:23:56 PM

Quote from: DeathAndTaxes on February 15, 2015, 09:34:25 AM

Quote from: shmadz on February 15, 2015, 02:39:24 AM

The reason for limiting the size of the block is to maintain the incentive for the miners.

No that is a purpose some people have invented after the fact. The purpose of the 1MB temporary restriction was to limit the potential damage caused by bloating or spam attacks. For essentially its entire history Bitcoin has effectively had an unlimited block size. If the total txn volume is 100KB and the block size is 1MB then the block size has no effect on fees at all. People paid fees to get timely inclusion in a block. We have never had a period of time where there were more txns than potential block space.

Sure, but what happens when the block reward is cut to 12.5? Or 6? Or 3?

I'm just saying that mining must be financially incentivized to act in a manner that protects the integrity of the blockchain, otherwise the whole thing will fall apart.

the whole idea of bitcoin is two-sided, on one hand you have decentralisation, but on the other hand, through all the reward halving all i can predict is the opposite; mining centralisation.
and with majority of hashing power, who will control changes made on bitcoin ? the one in control of the hash ofc.
its all just a little bit loose, even knowing that there is a team of dev's figuring things out, im sceptical about future sometimes..

shmadz

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1000

@theshmadz

Quote from: DeathAndTaxes on February 15, 2015, 09:34:25 AM

Quote from: shmadz on February 15, 2015, 02:39:24 AM

The reason for limiting the size of the block is to maintain the incentive for the miners.

No that is a purpose some people have invented after the fact. The purpose of the 1MB temporary restriction was to limit the potential damage caused by bloating or spam attacks. For essentially its entire history Bitcoin has effectively had an unlimited block size. If the total txn volume is 100KB and the block size is 1MB then the block size has no effect on fees at all. People paid fees to get timely inclusion in a block. We have never had a period of time where there were more txns than potential block space.

Sure, but what happens when the block reward is cut to 12.5? Or 6? Or 3?

I'm just saying that mining must be financially incentivized to act in a manner that protects the integrity of the blockchain, otherwise the whole thing will fall apart.

DeathAndTaxes

donator

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1079

Gerald Davis

Quote from: shmadz on February 15, 2015, 02:39:24 AM

The reason for limiting the size of the block is to maintain the incentive for the miners.

No that is a purpose some people have invented after the fact. The purpose of the 1MB temporary restriction was to limit the potential damage caused by bloating or spam attacks. For essentially its entire history Bitcoin has effectively had an unlimited block size. If the total txn volume is 100KB and the block size is 1MB then the block size has no effect on fees at all. People paid fees to get timely inclusion in a block. We have never had a period of time where there were more txns than potential block space.

shmadz

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1000

@theshmadz

Bitcoin does not exist for your enjoyment. It does not exist for the benefit of all. It exists because there is a demand for an alternative to the current, corrupt, banking system.

Micro-payments can be left for some other less secure alt-coin or side-chain.

The reason for limiting the size of the block is to maintain the incentive for the miners. This is the key. The Blockchain does not, by itself, solve the Byzantine Generals problem. It is the alignment of incentives that even makes this project possible.

The Blockchain is not infinite, and without the majority of the hashing power, it will not be secure.

Transaction fees should be implemented on a floating, market price, and the block size should remain fixed. (*until there is a reason to increase it which provides a proper profit incentive for the miners to accept such a change*)

Bitcoin is simply too important to fuck with, and your pathetic attempt to fork it will fail.

tss

hero member

Activity: 742

Merit: 500

Quote from: RodeoX on February 10, 2015, 11:28:22 AM

Quote from: BillyBobZorton on February 10, 2015, 09:17:32 AM

I still dont get how there are people supporting 1MB forever. Whats the point? dont you see its a dead end? I dont even get why this is a discussion.

I guess it starts with thinking every god dammed thing is a conspiracy of some sort. Add to that a lack of understanding about the protocol and you have "Gavincoin" plummeting to zero. Roll Eyes

is transaction size limit going to increase along with block size limit?

bitcoin1992

sr. member

Activity: 342

Merit: 250

Hopefully it goes down to 0 so I can buy all of them for free. Wink

FenixRD

sr. member

Activity: 364

Merit: 250

I am Citizenfive.

Quote from: BillyBobZorton on February 10, 2015, 09:17:32 AM

I still dont get how there are people supporting 1MB forever. Whats the point? dont you see its a dead end? I dont even get why this is a discussion.

There is at least one good reason, one which at the least I and Peter Todd support. It's an authoritarian one, though. (And thus, as above, I'm not really for a limit.)

Necessity is mother of all invention, and there are a shit-ton of things than can and are being made to aggregate transactions in different ways, ways which have different incentive, economic, and security implications. This impending limit has caused a great deal of thinking and research on sidechains, treechains, and several other things.

For this reason, while I'm for removal of the limit, I'm in no great hurry to see it happen, until TT1C (time-to-1st-confirmation) begins to be detrimentally impacted. So I've stumped a bit on the "leave it alone" side in some places.

So why am I here? (1) we're nearing where it could start non-negligibly impacting TT1C soon; and most of all (2) so long as this is getting debated hotly, I must insist that if it is to be changed, don't just replace 1MB with another dumb limit!

edit: So in any case there's no good reason for 1MB forever, which was your phrasing. In fact there's no good reason to have a blocksize limit while having a mintxfee; they solve the same problem.

RodeoX

legendary

Activity: 3066

Merit: 1147

The revolution will be monetized!

Quote from: BillyBobZorton on February 10, 2015, 09:17:32 AM

I still dont get how there are people supporting 1MB forever. Whats the point? dont you see its a dead end? I dont even get why this is a discussion.

I guess it starts with thinking every god dammed thing is a conspiracy of some sort. Add to that a lack of understanding about the protocol and you have "Gavincoin" plummeting to zero. Roll Eyes

BillyBobZorton

legendary

Activity: 1204

Merit: 1028

I still dont get how there are people supporting 1MB forever. Whats the point? dont you see its a dead end? I dont even get why this is a discussion.

FenixRD

sr. member

Activity: 364

Merit: 250

I am Citizenfive.

Quote from: HarmonLi on February 10, 2015, 08:33:03 AM

I think we may have to decide on a phrasing here. Being against Gavin can mean two things: "Against an increased maximum block size of 10 MB" or "Against any maximum block size". I think passing this 'problem' or rather decision onto the miners is the best way to go!

Right. I'm against his current plan of arbitrary increases. I'm not for NO maximum, but this is semantics -- there is also a max and min difficulty, etc. So, I'm for the max being de facto because of the protocol spec, as with difficulty.

Anti-spam measures need only exist to prevent DOS. (There might be an argument for preventing bandwidth-based centralization as well.) This can be managed via fees, which should be made algorithmic instead of arbitrary, as well.

To remind the thread, most pools cap blocks at 750k right now. (If you don't know why they'd do this, you really shouldn't be commenting on blocksize at all, without more understanding of how this all works!) This isn't going to change with the 1MB cap removed. The economics of Bitcoin will not really change with a blocksize increase.

So, tl;dr my recommendation is remove the 1MB cap; allow message length to be the current upper bound -- don't just drop another new arbitrary cap in place.

HarmonLi

sr. member

Activity: 350

Merit: 250

Honest 80s business!

Quote from: FenixRD on February 10, 2015, 08:29:33 AM

Quote from: DeathAndTaxes on February 07, 2015, 12:48:26 PM

Satoshi had no limit on block sizes at all ... There was a 33.5MB limit on message length and since blocks are transmitted as a single message it would have limited blocks to only 33.5MB but even this wasn't a hard limit as new message type could have been added which transmitted blocks in other ways (i.e. header & txn hashes vs full transactions).

The 1MB "limit" was added as a temporary anti-spam measure 18 months later ... the commit wasn't made by Satoshi.

Yep. Good enough for me. I'm of a mindset that you "don't change the original design unless there is hard evidence of a need". I'm against Gavin's plan simply because the numbers are arbitrary, and I don't like arbitrary. I'm in favor of rolling back to the original message length limitation and letting the miners determine block length based on their internal cost/benefit analysis using fees and orphan probability.

I don't want a "new" blocksize; I want the old blocksize back. When that gets full, we can discuss it further, and it'll be for the same reason that one day, we'll need to extend the decimal precision to allow division of satoshis.

I think we may have to decide on a phrasing here. Being against Gavin can mean two things: "Against an increased maximum block size of 10 MB" or "Against any maximum block size". I think passing this 'problem' or rather decision onto the miners is the best way to go!

FenixRD

sr. member

Activity: 364

Merit: 250

I am Citizenfive.

Quote from: DeathAndTaxes on February 07, 2015, 12:48:26 PM

Satoshi had no limit on block sizes at all ... There was a 33.5MB limit on message length and since blocks are transmitted as a single message it would have limited blocks to only 33.5MB but even this wasn't a hard limit as new message type could have been added which transmitted blocks in other ways (i.e. header & txn hashes vs full transactions).

The 1MB "limit" was added as a temporary anti-spam measure 18 months later ... the commit wasn't made by Satoshi.

Yep. Good enough for me. I'm of a mindset that you "don't change the original design unless there is hard evidence of a need". I'm against Gavin's plan simply because the numbers are arbitrary, and I don't like arbitrary. I'm in favor of rolling back to the original message length limitation and letting the miners determine block length based on their internal cost/benefit analysis using fees and orphan probability.

I don't want a "new" blocksize; I want the old blocksize back. When that gets full, we can discuss it further, and it'll be for the same reason that one day, we'll need to extend the decimal precision to allow division of satoshis.

HarmonLi

sr. member

Activity: 350

Merit: 250

Honest 80s business!

Quote from: periander on February 10, 2015, 04:24:19 AM

Quote from: HarmonLi on February 09, 2015, 12:07:59 PM

Quote from: periander on February 09, 2015, 10:39:58 AM

What i dont understant is the certainty that both coins/forks are gonna live. If lets say 80% of all Hashingpower switch to the new Fork the old work will get stuck at a very high difficulty so transactions will take 100 minutes. This will cause more miners to switch until the fork is practically death/useless.

And i think if a fork will ever happen it will be made sure that at least 80% of the miners are behind this decision.

Well, that's the beauty. If the 'old' version really retains 20% of the hashing power and people do keep it alive, the difficulty will adjust itself accordingly after some time. If more and more people actually switch to the 'new' version, the hard fork was indeed 'successful'. Thing is: It doesn't matter

Thats the point: this might not be the case. Lets asume that the next adjustment is like 10 Days away. If you only have 20% hashing power left that means, it would take 100days! This will scare away even more hashing power which will lead to even more time needed. So technically: yes a single CPU miner might can mine its way to the next adjustment but this may take years or decades. After all this time, even if the old fork got adjusted noone is interested in it anymore.

Yeah, if it only retains 10%, it may take a while, sure. But you've said it yourself: Things take care of themselves: If the long block time really turns people off, they'll switch back to the new chain - problem solved. It doesn't matter what happens, people decide what they want to happen and the majority wins - or both chains co-exist. It's beautiful.

HarmonLi

sr. member

Activity: 350

Merit: 250

Honest 80s business!

Quote from: Muuurrrrica! on February 10, 2015, 04:11:30 AM

Quote from: HarmonLi on February 09, 2015, 12:07:59 PM

Quote from: periander on February 09, 2015, 10:39:58 AM

What i dont understant is the certainty that both coins/forks are gonna live. If lets say 80% of all Hashingpower switch to the new Fork the old work will get stuck at a very high difficulty so transactions will take 100 minutes. This will cause more miners to switch until the fork is practically death/useless.

And i think if a fork will ever happen it will be made sure that at least 80% of the miners are behind this decision.

Well, that's the beauty. If the 'old' version really retains 20% of the hashing power and people do keep it alive, the difficulty will adjust itself accordingly after some time. If more and more people actually switch to the 'new' version, the hard fork was indeed 'successful'. Thing is: It doesn't matter

or people switch back to the original bitcoin because gavincoin is just a pain in the ass.

Then it's been decided that the majority doesn't want a larger block size! What's the problem? Bitcoin is the epitome of democracy when it comes to currencies! People decide with their hashing power. Beautiful!

periander

newbie

Activity: 24

Merit: 0

Quote from: HarmonLi on February 09, 2015, 12:07:59 PM

Quote from: periander on February 09, 2015, 10:39:58 AM

What i dont understant is the certainty that both coins/forks are gonna live. If lets say 80% of all Hashingpower switch to the new Fork the old work will get stuck at a very high difficulty so transactions will take 100 minutes. This will cause more miners to switch until the fork is practically death/useless.

And i think if a fork will ever happen it will be made sure that at least 80% of the miners are behind this decision.

Well, that's the beauty. If the 'old' version really retains 20% of the hashing power and people do keep it alive, the difficulty will adjust itself accordingly after some time. If more and more people actually switch to the 'new' version, the hard fork was indeed 'successful'. Thing is: It doesn't matter

Thats the point: this might not be the case. Lets asume that the next adjustment is like 10 Days away. If you only have 20% hashing power left that means, it would take 100days! This will scare away even more hashing power which will lead to even more time needed. So technically: yes a single CPU miner might can mine its way to the next adjustment but this may take years or decades. After all this time, even if the old fork got adjusted noone is interested in it anymore.

Muuurrrrica!

member

Activity: 84

Merit: 11

Quote from: HarmonLi on February 09, 2015, 12:07:59 PM

Quote from: periander on February 09, 2015, 10:39:58 AM

What i dont understant is the certainty that both coins/forks are gonna live. If lets say 80% of all Hashingpower switch to the new Fork the old work will get stuck at a very high difficulty so transactions will take 100 minutes. This will cause more miners to switch until the fork is practically death/useless.

And i think if a fork will ever happen it will be made sure that at least 80% of the miners are behind this decision.

Well, that's the beauty. If the 'old' version really retains 20% of the hashing power and people do keep it alive, the difficulty will adjust itself accordingly after some time. If more and more people actually switch to the 'new' version, the hard fork was indeed 'successful'. Thing is: It doesn't matter

or people switch back to the original bitcoin because gavincoin is just a pain in the ass.

HarmonLi

sr. member

Activity: 350

Merit: 250

Honest 80s business!

Quote from: periander on February 09, 2015, 10:39:58 AM

What i dont understant is the certainty that both coins/forks are gonna live. If lets say 80% of all Hashingpower switch to the new Fork the old work will get stuck at a very high difficulty so transactions will take 100 minutes. This will cause more miners to switch until the fork is practically death/useless.

And i think if a fork will ever happen it will be made sure that at least 80% of the miners are behind this decision.

Well, that's the beauty. If the 'old' version really retains 20% of the hashing power and people do keep it alive, the difficulty will adjust itself accordingly after some time. If more and more people actually switch to the 'new' version, the hard fork was indeed 'successful'. Thing is: It doesn't matter

Topic: The hardfork will make Gavincoin plummet to zero - page 2. (Read 11296 times)