Topic: Why Bitcoin Core Developers won't compromise - page 8. (Read 11823 times)

Well I see only one way for Bitcoin to get off the dime and somehow the devs of many flavors work out a solution to scaling

That is if Litecoin starts to zoom out stuff on lighting and other stuff now that they have segregated witness up

If that lever does not work to move these guys...I"ve no frigging clue

(yeah its a lame hope..it is all I got at the moment)

Oh look - there it is. Thanks for stepping up.

Nevertheless, April 15 of this year is long after this position had been publicly advocated. Maybe you just missed it?

---

edit: went spelunking - below are a few instances of such a claim that predate Ver's tweet VVVV

Conclusion on Mar 20: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.18271681

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.18258671

stronger wording: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.18257263

This one is precious - it is in direct response to you. Mar 12: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.18162340

Hey! Here's my post to dinofelis that I alluded to above: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.18155798

"non-mining nodes don't count for doodley-squat": https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.17602571

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.17560211

Middle of 2016... https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.15751668

11+ months ago: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.14994560

"nodes have fuck-all to say about it" - more than a year ago: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.14308946

"independent nodes essentially fulfill zero marginal utility": https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.13895379

This one is fun - gmax using his time-tested technique of abandoning a convo that is not going his way. Feb 2016: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.13788734

Well, that's all I've the patience for. Demonstrably, this point has been advocated long before Ver's tweet.

Indeed. You may recall my first direct response to you was to thank you for stating the view that non-mining entities have no real power in the Bitcoin network - for the exact reasoning you state. I went on to explain that I had been tilting at that proverbial windmill for some months -- as a lone and ridiculed voice in the crowd. I had come to this conclusion pretty much as you state, after a loooong period of 'drinking the proverbial non-mining-but-validating-entities-guard-the-system koolaid'. Of course, you articulate the reasoning in a much clearer manner, which has helped to crystalize my thinking on the matter.

But really, I was hoping Lauda would step up to the challenge of providing attribution for his/her claim that "it all started with Ver's tweet". For I believe this to be unmitigated bullshit. I could be wrong, but I doubt it. It looks like just another weak-minded aspersion-casting on the part of a party bereft of a logical argument.

I have not seen this argument being used by almost any BU supporter until Ver made the following Tweet:
https://twitter.com/rogerkver/status/853250894162350080

This is something I've been claiming for quite a while, I'm not aware of any tweets or anything, I just came, totally by myself, to that (rather obvious) conclusion by studying the system.  I've tried to explain that several times here, the reasoning is not so difficult to follow, and doesn't need any authority because it is a logical deduction from the known technical aspects of bitcoin - but if anything, it was the exact reason of why PoW was introduced in the first place.

That said, the fact that Satoshi introduced PoW to *deny full nodes any consensus decision power* is, in itself, not a logical proof: it would be a fallacy as I've been lining out several others of committing the error of taking a desirable goal as a logical consequence.  So it is not because Satoshi *wanted* full nodes not to have any consensus decision power, that this is the case.  It is simply the case because if you do the *Gedanken experiment* where all non-mining full nodes try to enforce a protocol change, and all the miners keep on their protocol, it are the miners that win, and the full nodes that stop.  I consider that as the logical proof that purely technically, full nodes don't decide anything, nor about the building of the block chain, nor about the protocol it has to obey.
At best, full nodes can *signal* a kind of desire by users - but they are not representative of users.  Less than 1% of users runs a full node, and maybe many of them aren't even strongly attached to the "signal" of their node, they just want running software.  >99% of users don't have full nodes ; nobody knows what is the economical weight of the full node owners who are strongly politically committed to one or another choice, so nobody can have an idea what block chain would get most of the market cap after an eventual hard fork (which is what full nodes, at best, could signal, if they were economically representative, which they aren't).

Miners make the block chain(s) ; users vote on it with their money on exchanges.  Miners sell block chain to users, who pay for it by buying the coins miners obtain that way.  Users "buy block chain" because they have reasons to want to use it (for transactions, for speculation, ....) That's the economic model of a PoW crypto currency.  Full nodes are proxy servers putting themselves in between the miners and the users, which have as limited use, the fact that users don't have to have a direct internet connection to miners, but can use also a P2P network to obtain their certified transactions on the chain, and to send their transactions to the miners who will hopefully include them in the chain they collectively produce.  If direct internet connections are possible, the use of full node proxy servers is questionable.  If direct internet connections are problematic, the full node proxy servers have a useful communication role.

Full nodes can be useful for their owners: checking what happens (without power to act) ; deniability of sending one's own transactions.  Fun.

Of course, I'm not a twit, so perhaps I am merely ignorant here. Is there some Tweet made on the part of Roger Ver which you are claiming has started the instances of people pointing out that non-mining entities have no actual power on the Bitcoin network? Because that is what it looks like you are claiming. Would you be a good sport and post a link to this alleged tweet that started it all? Thanks.

Well, yes... but only by kicking someone else out of the line. Whose fee was 'proper' until you upped the ante.

This article is an opinion piece.  There is nothing in it that constitutes proof.  So you should refrain from using the term "proves you wrong" as it does not.  The basis of the article is to take some past behavior and project it into the future.   This is what is known as extrapolation.  Proof by extrapolation is not really a thing.  Also, in finance extrapolation is known to be a poor tool for anticipating the future.  For example, look at XRP, it's grown 50x in 2 months.  Let's extrapolate that to the end of the year.  Oh wait, now XRP is worth 50^3 = 125000x its current value or >100tt usd market cap. Now I've proved that XRP will be worth as much as all the worlds equities by the end of the year.  It must be true, because I proved it (would it help if I provide nice charts to show this proof on? I can, so please don't doubt its veracity.)  The proof that you offered about BTC 2019 volatility is worth just as much as the one I've offered about XRP end of year market cap.

The irony here (situational) is that while you accused one person of blindly accepting formulas (he didn't, *), you have blindly accepted the analysis of a blogger and stated it to be fact.  Are you able to see the irony in this?

(*) It's helpful to understand that V is simply defined to be the variable which makes the formula true.  So by definition the formula is always true.  It's sort of like blindly accepting 1=1.  If you can accept that, then you should be comfortable with Fischer's formula.

Neither am I copy-past, nor am I any kind of minion. Maybe you should look at the people who you praise; they got some nice Reddit badges (among other things) for their *work*.

Are you telling me Jihad & co should be the only ones running nodes?

There isn't a single technical argument in that thread. There is only "[y] is [z] because I think it is [z] or [insertAppealToAuthority]".

Keep up the good work, Jonald. And kudos for keeping your cool under fire and staying diplomatic.

I see a shift happening amongst free-thinking people.

When you are so desperate, you start attacking the author instead of refuting the arguments.

...says a Core talking points copy-paster minion...

I thought the article was good, thanks for hyping it,

What is "unusable" to you, is usable to others.

If you used the "proper" fee your tx would have confirmed by now.

Not to mention there is a thing called Replace By Fee which you could have used (did you?) where you can submit another tx with a different fee amount after the fact to make sure it gets confirmed assuming you've been waiting for a while, which you have been.

When you are so desperate, you start writing medium articles even though you're a nobody in the Bitcoin world. An Open Letter to Bitcoin Miners - Jonald Fyookball

Clearly not.

---

It started with Ver's tweet, and now they're pushing this false rhetoric. The end goal of BU & the proponents is heavy centralization of the system. No wonder cypherpunk don't want to "compromise" with the loons.

Indeed, I didn't look into the numbers, but I have the impression that analysis only considered the high-frequency part of the volatility (say, daily or hourly or so).  As you correctly point out, the low frequency volatility (weeks, months, years) of most big fiat is pretty small, and that of bitcoin is still huge.
For instance, over its 17 years of existance, the EURO and the USD never deviated more than something like 50%, going from an exchange rate of 0.8 to 1.5 or so.

Over its 8 years of existence, bitcoin did 6 orders of magnitude.  Of course, that won't happen any more (1 billion a coin I'm hodling in case ).  But in 2 years time, same vol, don't think so.  It doesn't contain any regulating mechanism !

"Centralized authority, please save us !"

The economic invention of the century would regulate itself, and wouldn't need an intervention from the board of gouvernors, don't you think ?

This is an interesting article, but I would like to see the volatility definition he's using.  Of course bitcoin cannot be that small circle.  Maybe he's only taking, say, 24 hr volatility or something, and not the entire RMS of the whole curve, in other words, only the high-frequency spectrum of the price curve ?

Clearly, bitcoin's dollar price doesn't look like a FLAT LINE with some noise on it at all, which is what low long-term volatility would mean.  

The point is that it is economically well-known that collectibles have no stable price, which was the problem with the booms and busts of gold-based currencies (which was essentially "solved" by fractional reserve banking, putting again elasticity in the monetary offer).

I bet the Chinese and Japanese exchanges, speculators and mining farms want to increase the block size and avoid off chain solutions. Why have the Asians not taken over development? They currently control most of the bitcoin market why shouldn't they control development?  Why is the Western world controlling what has clearly become an Asian commodity?

Fisher's formula is essentially tautological.  It goes like this:
Q = the amount of economic goods that were bought with the currency, in a unit of value (say, a Big Mac, but it doesn't matter) in a given period
P = the price in units of our currency, of that unit of value (presumed stable enough during the period)

Clearly, Q . P = the amount of our currency that went over the counter to buy Q

M is the total amount of coins of our currency in existence (presumed fixed during the period)
We split that amount in different "kinds": m0 ; m1 ; m2 ; m3 .... mn so that their sum is M.

m0 are the coins that didn't move during this period (were held)

m1 are the coins that were spend once during this period

m2 are the coins that were spend twice: from A to B, and from B to C.

m3 are the coins that were spend three times

...

mn are the coins that were spend n times.

Clearly, the total amount of spendings, is:

m1 + 2 m2 + 3 m3 + ... + n mn

The total amount of spendings must be equal to the total amount of coins that went over the counter:

P . Q = m1 + 2 m2 + 3 m3 + .... + n mn

Now, define V = m1/M + 2 m2/M + 3 m3/M + ... n mn/M
which is the weighted average number of times a coin was spend during this period.

Then we have: P . Q = M . V


You shouldn't consider my critique of bitcoin as a critique of the idea to have a free currency.   My critique of bitcoin considers the bad design of it, not its pretended reason of existence.