Topic: Why Gavin is so desperate about his fork? Is he hiding something? - page 6. (Read 18520 times)

What? Maybe you have missed a lot of the history of this problem or even you are trolling me. 

But he easily could have been able to bring out his own version with 8MB blocks. He is one of the main developers so it should have been no problem. He had high prestige and now he wasted it.

Well, it's his decision. But it's too bad that we now are in this situation. Would he have been created his own version then many many would have trusted him. But so... even when we know a fork is possible, it is useless when there is no integer developer who creates such a version. No one questionable.

Do you understand that the discrimination is only possible with a situation of a limited size?

If there is a space for 10 tx on a block, and the block is always full, the entity that makes the block (the pool/miner), then can chose to give a preference to some tx.
So, it can ask for a fee paid to him directly.
If the block now has the space for 100 tx (example), the miner/pool can still try to ask for a fee, but no one is going to pay it, because there is a very high probability that another miner will incluse all the fees directly.

This simple logic doesn't need a genius evil mind. You should see that mike was already clever on giving this warning a way before this has happened.

If nobody wants to attack it, than it has no value. You can't have both.

All the things that you say about sidecoin/chain are your personal expectations.
While you hope for something, you shouldn't stop looking at the reality.
Expectations can become failures.

Discrimination in mining, and Mike being early to realize the 'utility.'  Sorry to have lost you...

If you need it tied back to the tittle of the thread, I don't supposed it has escaped you that Mike and Gavin work as a team now...with an obvious and and amusing hierarchical structure.  Probably when Mike was postulating about mining consolidation and the nice things that that could accomplish Gavin's head had as many question marks hovering around it as 95% of the rest of the readers here.  Things have 'evolved' in the interceding four years.


In theory, sidecoins are a nearly perfect proxy for native Bitcoin.  And in practice, the Blockstream dudes seem to be making great progress as I see it.  Scaling problem solved.  It is certainly possible that 1MB won't be enough for Bitcoin in a backing roll at some point.  Everyone recognizes this.  It will become more clear how many years off that is once the sidechains ecosystem blossoms.

I don't care if individual side-chains are centralized and consolidated.  I'll balance my risk between whichever ones I choose and draw off my stake in any that I dis-agree with or don't/cannot trust.

I care only that I have one trusted option at the pinicle.  That would be native Bitcoin (currently, and hopefully going forward) as a base store of value which I can use on the irregular instances where it really matters.  Keeping that (and just that) 'free' is the most important thing to me.  I am nearly completely sure that Mike and Gavin see things similarly except just the opposite.  The most critical thing is to contain Bitcoin and hand it over to the mainstream banks.  Why is less clear to me.

Anyway, the mining thing is probably a canard and not really that big a problem.  If the miners became to obnoxious a hard-fork would totally fuck anyone doing sha256 on ASIC so they probably would not dare.  If it came to a hard-fork for that reason a whole lot of other loose-end type things could be rolled in as well.  I've petitioned the Blockstream guys to work on such a thing as a background task so that if such an action is unavoidable (for this reason or others) the outcome will be more positive than negative.



Bitcoin would work just fine with me running one CPU miner in the background...as long as nobody attacked it.

I notice that the Blockstream guys were very clever insofar as they started out setting very long expectations.  In the days-range as I recall.  What this means is that a superior resources attack would need to be sustained successfully for a long time and it would be quite expensive and the probability of success against countermeasures would be relatively low.  Smart folks!  (I tend to bet my money on smart folks, BTW.)

Yes I'm in favor, and Gavin was probably "desperate" because he wanted to avoid even the situation/solution that BTCC is going to do (and I'm sure that it will not be the last)

I don't think that it was stupid, but just the last possibility to save Bitcoin from the corrupted team.

It was just a way to show to the community that it's possible to fork if needed.

But why the h... did he join forces with hearn? Someone he criticized all the time already for his dictatoric style and dangerous ideas. That was incredibly stupid. No he lost his credibility. I can't understand him.

The small miners will not get much from higher fees. Big companies would simply scale their operation to squeeze the last bit of reward out of the network. Small miners are a dying species.

Well, this business idea was awaitable. If you have such a big part of the networks hashpower then you get such ideas i guess. But 13% is not so much. The speed advantage is not really big. It sounds more like a advertising idea.

But why do you bring Gavin into this? Priority transactions would make way more sense with 1MB blocks because the blocks would be constantly full and you would have no luck getting included often. Then you can easily sell such service.

I'm really puzzled what you want with Gavin at this point. What he wanted to do would make this business model useless.

Or did i misunderstood and you are in favor of increasing blocksize limit?

How is that deficit calculated? By the current hashrate? That would be nonsense to do because it would look like we need to keep the miner rewards stable. That is not true. Miners switched off nonprofitable hardware all the time and no one was crazy enough to demand we would need fees to make up for the first block halving.

What do you fear will happen when a chunk of miners will drop off their unprofitable miners? The network is more than secure and nothing happened in the past either. I think your fears are unbased.


Economically that is nonsense. You sound like we need to raise the amount of miners all the time but it is not allowed to drop. In fact mining momentarely is so rewarding that we have this sheer amount of hashpower that we are 100 fold more secure than needed. Shouldn't that be a good sign that we don't need to feed this useless overhead? It's like a overboarding bureaucracy in a country. Eating a lot of money but politicians say we need all that.

Look at the past, maybe you will see that your fears are unbased.

What's the point about mike here? I'm totally missing it.

Now that the space on the blocks is becoming a very rare resource, then it will be the same for the confirmations.
So it's logic that who manage this space (like pools as BTCC) is trying to get more income from it.

The Blockchain is secure thanks to the avidity of the miners, it can't be otherwise.

Remember Hearn's quote about 'no difference between freezing coins and keeping them from being spent for 20 years.'  I see no indication that he has not worked toward that goal (extreme miner consolidation far beyond what is practical at 1MB) since that time.  All the while fostering other potential attack vectors as well of course.

It weirds me out that these guys don't even admit the possibility of a conflict of interest. Or they do, but only on one side. Personally, I think the Blockstream employed contingent of core does legitimately have these concerns about relay node incentives, and for good stated reasons. Legitimate concerns don't necessitate complete stasis though. I see potential conflicts of interest on both sides.

Just to remember that the only thing that Gavin wanted was increasing the block size, from 2/3 years ago.
All other things about the fork are after he saw that it wasn't possible with the current Blockstream team.

Though they are the ones who can deny changes to the code, isn't it? There is no democracy where the majority decides which code parts get into the next release or am i seeing that wrong?

The phraseology makes it sound like Gavin's role in TBF was a bit more passive than it probably was.  Remember that it was Gavin himself who floated the idea of such a foundation pretty early on in this forum.  The organization didn't even have a name.  There was a thread on this forum about the possibility, structure, etc.  I remember it because Theymos and I were among the distinct minority of voices warning that there were risks.  Almost everyone else was all rah, rah, rah about the idea.

It's a real cunt trying to find these old threads so I won't bother.  I've called attention to it several times in the past.

I think their intentions aren't questioned without good reasons. If someone wants to save bitcoin then he would save bitcoin. And not come up with a solution that practically means not to use bitcoin.

Not bought but it was always said that the developers in question invested in blockstream. So they own the company partly and obviously that means they await to get their investment back with profits.

Well, this is all so dark that you can't really tell what is true and false. :/

Yeah, it's a pain that the idealism from the beginning of bitcoin seems to be lost. All developers act like politicians that have their side job at a bank or insurance company. Effectively not working for the people anymore but for the company.

Maybe users will just prefer to pay directly big pools to be sure to get an earlier confirmation.

I was of the impression that the bigger miners spoke out for changing the blocksize limit to 8 Megabytes. Which looked interesting to me since they did not set the shortterm income over the longterm development.

At the end high fees will lead to less transactions, which leads to less total fees again. Well, i hope miners are thinking longterm. Though the difficulty is not really promoting this way of thinking. If you don't have your investment back in the first 2 or 3 months then you most probably will never. So the shortterm income is everything, nearly like trained into miners.