the real Bitcoin debate and why the market always wins - page 2.

AngryDwarf

sr. member

Activity: 476

Merit: 501

Quoted an another thread:

Quote from: angrydwarf

My current thoughts on this matter are:

1. Mining nodes = blockchain builders and source of new coins
2. Business nodes = coin utility enablers by supplying goods or services
3. User nodes = source of economic activity by moving coins

1 + 2 are the nodes that in consensus dictate the protocol. 3 either follow or become unsynced. May as well become SPV wallets in the long run.

Thats my two sats for now, but don't worry - it won't confirm as its not worthy of inclusion due to the transaction fee.

If there is unanimous consensus and well connected nodes between groups 1 & 2, group 3 basically has no choice but to follow. If they don't, their transactions don't get confirmed and their UTXO's simply become unspendable in the system making other coins more valuable.

AgentofCoin

legendary

Activity: 1092

Merit: 1001

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on March 21, 2017, 01:27:04 PM

Quote from: AgentofCoin on March 21, 2017, 01:20:45 PM

...Validator Nodes majority ...

This is a meaningless concept in my opinion. Nodes are important for relaying but nodes are cheap compared to hashing
or trading. Economic majority is what counts. If miners create a hard fork, then investors will vote with their dollars.
Nodes don't really get a vote.

If you read the last paragraph of my prior posting:

Quote from: AgentofCoin on March 21, 2017, 01:06:59 PM

...
Exchanges, Businesses, Users, & etc (Economies) are the Validator Nodes. If Miners
will not hardfork without Exchanges, they are saying they need Validator Nodes.

Holliday

legendary

Activity: 1120

Merit: 1012

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on March 21, 2017, 01:27:04 PM

This is a meaningless concept in my opinion. Nodes are important for relaying but nodes are cheap compared to hashing
or trading. Economic majority is what counts. If miners create a hard fork, then investors will vote with their dollars.
Nodes don't really get a vote.

While nodes don't really get a vote, they may represent one.

If I had to venture a guess, people with large amounts of bitcoin also are the type of people who will want the obvious advantages that comes from using a full node as your wallet software.

Clearly this is only speculation on my part, but I think it makes sense.

Holliday

legendary

Activity: 1120

Merit: 1012

Quote from: David Rabahy on March 21, 2017, 01:33:26 PM

Quote from: Holliday on March 21, 2017, 01:23:14 PM

Quote from: David Rabahy on March 21, 2017, 01:16:38 PM

Is *anyone* making blocks >1MB right now? Where would one go to see such?

No, not with Bitcoin.

As soon as someone makes a block larger than 1 MB they, and clients and miners that support larger blocks, will fork away from the clients and miners who do not support larger blocks, and there would be two block chains, both claiming to be Bitcoin.

Frankly, I'm surprised someone doesn't make a >1MB block and ignite this. What's keeping them from doing it? Good behavior? I can't do it; I don't command enough hashing power.

It obvious. They don't have the support of the economic majority or it would have happened ages ago.

David Rabahy

hero member

Activity: 709

Merit: 503

Quote from: Holliday on March 21, 2017, 01:23:14 PM

Quote from: David Rabahy on March 21, 2017, 01:16:38 PM

Is *anyone* making blocks >1MB right now? Where would one go to see such?

No, not with Bitcoin.

As soon as someone makes a block larger than 1 MB they, and clients and miners that support larger blocks, will fork away from the clients and miners who do not support larger blocks, and there would be two block chains, both claiming to be Bitcoin.

Frankly, I'm surprised someone doesn't make a >1MB block and ignite this. What's keeping them from doing it? Good behavior? I can't do it; I don't command enough hashing power.

Shifty1down5up

newbie

Activity: 22

Merit: 0

Quote from: David Rabahy on March 21, 2017, 01:11:15 PM

Man, you guys are killing me. Ok, so, I shutdown my Core version of Bitcoin and downloaded/installed the BU version. I will switch back if I want to.

https://coin.dance/blocks is the place to watch the drama?

I am not happy. I want the two camps to come together. This might be impossible given human nature but it is what I want.

?? You're only confusing yourself. By going the unlimited route you are encouraging a fork.

I haven't decided myself. Seems a fork is over all bad as it adds to confusion for the man on the street. BTC's appeal is it's brand name. I never got into this to buy cheese burgers. It's simply a store of value.

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1008

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

Quote from: AgentofCoin on March 21, 2017, 01:20:45 PM

...Validator Nodes majority ...

This is a meaningless concept in my opinion. Nodes are important for relaying but nodes are cheap compared to hashing
or trading. Economic majority is what counts. If miners create a hard fork, then investors will vote with their dollars.
Nodes don't really get a vote.

Holliday

legendary

Activity: 1120

Merit: 1012

Quote from: David Rabahy on March 21, 2017, 01:16:38 PM

Is *anyone* making blocks >1MB right now? Where would one go to see such?

No, not with Bitcoin.

As soon as someone makes a block larger than 1 MB they, and clients and miners that support larger blocks, will fork away from the clients and miners who do not support larger blocks, and there would be two block chains, both claiming to be Bitcoin.

AgentofCoin

legendary

Activity: 1092

Merit: 1001

Quote from: Oznog on March 21, 2017, 01:15:20 PM

Quote from: AgentofCoin on March 21, 2017, 01:06:59 PM

...Miners should hardfork right now and the fighting will be over.

I think that's exactly what's going to happen.

And that is what we are all waiting for.

I think I know what will happen, but we will only know when the
Miners contentiously hardfork. Otherwise, they aren't going to get what
they think they want since the Validator Nodes majority don't want on
On-Chain scaling right now at this point in time.

I have already resigned myself into thinking it is inevitable now.
So lets do this already if they have the brains and balls.

Quote from: David Rabahy on March 21, 2017, 01:16:38 PM

Is *anyone* making blocks >1MB right now? Where would one go to see such?

No, only after the hardfork occurs, and when it does, you will know it
happened because shit will go crazy in ever Bitcoin sector.

David Rabahy

hero member

Activity: 709

Merit: 503

Is *anyone* making blocks >1MB right now? Where would one go to see such?

Oznog

member

Activity: 65

Merit: 10

Quote from: AgentofCoin on March 21, 2017, 01:06:59 PM

...Miners should hardfork right now and the fighting will be over.

I think that's exactly what's going to happen.

David Rabahy

hero member

Activity: 709

Merit: 503

Man, you guys are killing me. Ok, so, I shutdown my Core version of Bitcoin and downloaded/installed the BU version. I will switch back if I want to.

https://coin.dance/blocks is the place to watch the drama?

I am not happy. I want the two camps to come together. This might be impossible given human nature but it is what I want.

AgentofCoin

legendary

Activity: 1092

Merit: 1001

Quote from: Oznog on March 21, 2017, 12:48:03 PM

Quote from: AgentofCoin on March 21, 2017, 12:15:04 PM

Nakamoto Consensus was based on 1 CPU = 1 Vote. When 1 CPU = 1 Vote stopped
being applicable, Nakamoto Consensus either ended, or morphed into what I am
saying, depending on your viewpoint. Today, we call it simply "Consensus" (since
"Nakamoto Consensus" essentially failed).

In my opinion it is over-understood that GPU, ASIC and also future quantum computing is understood as "CPU" in this context.

If as you say the nodes has weight, that weight is about only 40$/m per node.
Why do you think that the deployment of nodes is a big problem for the miners?

There is very likely miscommunication, since I do not understand what you are getting at.

But, GPU, ASIC, or Quantum Mining, do not equal CPU. That is impossible.
Validator Nodes are the only mechanism to prevent miners from breaking rules.
Miners today have the power to break rules because 1 CPU has become 1 ASIC.
If 1 CPU = 1 ASIC, then Miners could not threaten hardforks, it would still be all
or nothing with upgrades.

"Weight" of Nodes is irrelevant. Validator Nodes currently are altruistic.
Profit is worthless since Validator Nodes run on ideology. Their current Ideology
is the current protocol implementation or what they individually signal for.

Deployment of Validator Nodes are not a big problem for Miners, as long as Miners
do not attempt to break the rules. If Miners think they have more power or "weight"
than Validators, then Miners should hardfork right now and the fighting will be over.
Miners do not do this because the knowledgeable Miners understand what I am saying.

Exchanges, Businesses, Users, & etc (Economies) are the Validator Nodes. If Miners
will not hardfork without Exchanges, they are saying they need Validator Nodes.

AgentofCoin

legendary

Activity: 1092

Merit: 1001

Quote from: franky1 on March 21, 2017, 12:38:27 PM

Quote from: AgentofCoin on March 21, 2017, 12:15:04 PM

What you just stated is incorrect in response to my statement.

You are talking about signaling for proposed protocol changes and then
after that change, how that "new protocol" chain is built upon.

What you have failed to address, which is my statement, is that in order for
miners to get a new protocol change, they need a node network that supports
their protocol change. Miners without a decentralized validator node network is
not a blockchain nor a cryptocurrency. What you described is like a OneCoin scam.

Nakamoto Consensus as it was envisioned in the Whitepaper stopped being true
when ASICs forced the separation between Mining and Validating. Today, Miners
if they wanted to, do not need to validate to mine. The Validator Node network
currently holds them to some semi-validation. Without them, miners can build
invalid blocks without recourse.

Nakamoto Consensus was based on 1 CPU = 1 Vote. When 1 CPU = 1 Vote stopped
being applicable, Nakamoto Consensus either ended, or morphed into what I am
saying, depending on your viewpoint. Today, we call it simply "Consensus" (since
"Nakamoto Consensus" essentially failed).

node consensus still exists.

nodes can still orphan blocks.
this is why core INTENTIONALLY decided to avoid node consensus.

do not confuse CORES intentions of giving only pools the vote. with how the 3 dimensional symbiotic secure of consensus works.

nodes can still block and ban off anything segwit if they wanted to.

Validator Node Consensus is not "Nakamoto Consensus".
Miner Node Consensus is not "Nakamoto Consensus".
"Nakamoto Consensus" still exists if Miners & Validators are both being asked to
signal/vote together. At one time, either side could not dictate to the other, but
this is now the case.

Choosing to use one of the two parties (Miners or Validators) to determine a protocol
or bug/fix change to the code is valid, since it is possible to do now, since ASICs
caused the splitting of "Nakamoto Consensus". The splitting has allowed for new ways
to "upgrade" the Bitcoin network. Whether those new ways are good or overall harmful
to the system as a symbiotic organism, is dependent on if a party disagrees with the
proposal. If all can agree, any method of upgrade is appropriate, whether by pool/miner
or nodes.

My statements about how Consensus works now does not mean that things can be
implemented, since Yes, the other symbiotic systems need to participate eventually
as well. If other systems hold out indefinitely, then nothing is actually accomplished.

franky1

legendary

Activity: 4424

Merit: 4794

Quote from: vnvizow on March 21, 2017, 12:51:07 PM

IMO it's a problem for the community as a whole, while anyone can be a node so normal users can still have a vote in things, the possibility of "fake" nodes being hosted by sides of the fork to skew numbers is increasingly higher

and nodes can ban obvious sybil nodes by ip banning certain 'servers'

vnvizow

sr. member

Activity: 364

Merit: 250

Quote from: Oznog on March 21, 2017, 12:48:03 PM

Quote from: AgentofCoin on March 21, 2017, 12:15:04 PM

Nakamoto Consensus was based on 1 CPU = 1 Vote. When 1 CPU = 1 Vote stopped
being applicable, Nakamoto Consensus either ended, or morphed into what I am
saying, depending on your viewpoint. Today, we call it simply "Consensus" (since
"Nakamoto Consensus" essentially failed).

In my opinion it is over-understood that GPU, ASIC and also future quantum computing is understood as "CPU" in this context.

If as you say the nodes had weight, that weight is about only 40 $/m per node.
Do you think that the deployment of nodes is a problem for the miners?

IMO it's a problem for the community as a whole, while anyone can be a node so normal users can still have a vote in things, the possibility of "fake" nodes being hosted by sides of the fork to skew numbers is increasingly higher

Oznog

member

Activity: 65

Merit: 10

Quote from: AgentofCoin on March 21, 2017, 12:15:04 PM

Nakamoto Consensus was based on 1 CPU = 1 Vote. When 1 CPU = 1 Vote stopped
being applicable, Nakamoto Consensus either ended, or morphed into what I am
saying, depending on your viewpoint. Today, we call it simply "Consensus" (since
"Nakamoto Consensus" essentially failed).

In my opinion it is over-understood that GPU, ASIC and also future quantum computing is understood as "CPU" in this context.

If as you say the nodes has weight, that weight is about only 40$/m per node.
Why do you think that the deployment of nodes is a big problem for the miners?

Jacce

sr. member

Activity: 294

Merit: 250

To me it seems more like a centralized core dev team vs a bunch of chinese miner oligarchs.

In the end, though, I think you are right that the market always wins. That doesn't really equate to whoever has the most mining power, though, but rather where the money of the users is. If more (rich) people wants to buy Core bitcoins that Unlimited bitcoins, then I would say Core wins (or vice versa).

vnvizow

sr. member

Activity: 364

Merit: 250

Quote from: franky1 on March 21, 2017, 12:38:27 PM

Quote from: AgentofCoin on March 21, 2017, 12:15:04 PM

What you just stated is incorrect in response to my statement.

You are talking about signaling for proposed protocol changes and then
after that change, how that "new protocol" chain is built upon.

What you have failed to address, which is my statement, is that in order for
miners to get a new protocol change, they need a node network that supports
their protocol change. Miners without a decentralized validator node network is
not a blockchain nor a cryptocurrency. What you described is like a OneCoin scam.

Nakamoto Consensus as it was envisioned in the Whitepaper stopped being true
when ASICs forced the separation between Mining and Validating. Today, Miners
if they wanted to, do not need to validate to mine. The Validator Node network
currently holds them to some semi-validation. Without them, miners can build
invalid blocks without recourse.

Nakamoto Consensus was based on 1 CPU = 1 Vote. When 1 CPU = 1 Vote stopped
being applicable, Nakamoto Consensus either ended, or morphed into what I am
saying, depending on your viewpoint. Today, we call it simply "Consensus" (since
"Nakamoto Consensus" essentially failed).

node consensus still exists.

nodes can still orphan blocks.
this is why core INTENTIONALLY decided to avoid node consensus.

do not confuse CORES intentions of giving only pools the vote. with how the 3 dimensional symbiotic secure of consensus works.

nodes can still block and ban off anything segwit if they wanted to.
this is why segwit has their segwit pstream tier network to strip blocks to 'fake it' to appear as a block that follows old rules to fake it passed nodes. but nodes can ip ban segwit filter nodes if they so wish to.

much like segwit can ban and orphan non segwit nodes and blocks.

Wait, is that why the percentage for segwit acceptance vary so much? I'm going to assume BU has the same issue

franky1

legendary

Activity: 4424

Merit: 4794

Quote from: AgentofCoin on March 21, 2017, 12:15:04 PM

What you just stated is incorrect in response to my statement.

You are talking about signaling for proposed protocol changes and then
after that change, how that "new protocol" chain is built upon.

What you have failed to address, which is my statement, is that in order for
miners to get a new protocol change, they need a node network that supports
their protocol change. Miners without a decentralized validator node network is
not a blockchain nor a cryptocurrency. What you described is like a OneCoin scam.

Nakamoto Consensus as it was envisioned in the Whitepaper stopped being true
when ASICs forced the separation between Mining and Validating. Today, Miners
if they wanted to, do not need to validate to mine. The Validator Node network
currently holds them to some semi-validation. Without them, miners can build
invalid blocks without recourse.

Nakamoto Consensus was based on 1 CPU = 1 Vote. When 1 CPU = 1 Vote stopped
being applicable, Nakamoto Consensus either ended, or morphed into what I am
saying, depending on your viewpoint. Today, we call it simply "Consensus" (since
"Nakamoto Consensus" essentially failed).

node consensus still exists.

nodes can still orphan blocks.
this is why core INTENTIONALLY decided to avoid node consensus.

do not confuse CORES intentions of giving only pools the vote. with how the 3 dimensional symbiotic secure of consensus works.

nodes can still block and ban off anything segwit if they wanted to.
this is why segwit has their segwit pstream tier network to strip blocks to 'fake it' to appear as a block that follows old rules to fake it passed nodes. but nodes can ip ban segwit filter nodes if they so wish to.

much like segwit can ban and orphan non segwit nodes and blocks.

Topic: the real Bitcoin debate and why the market always wins - page 2. (Read 2069 times)