Why the Bitcoin rules can't change (reading time ~5min) - page 7.

Peter Todd

legendary

Activity: 1120

Merit: 1149

Quote from: notig on February 20, 2013, 09:40:20 PM

He isn't talking about users of bitcoin. he is talking about MINERS. Already mining is somewhat exclusive. Think someone living on a dollar a day with a 56k modem is going to be able to afford an ASIC? What he is saying is that rather than trying to cater to 100% of people who can mine... it's better for the bitcoin network to have the grunt work(mining) done by users with decent internet connections. (which already prevail in the developed world). Otherwise the bitcoin network can't succeed because if it becomes more popular... then the network itself will be a bottleneck.

Sheesh... When I brought up 56k modems, I stated quite clearly they are too slow to mine on, because the orphan rate would be way too high. However, they are fast enough to keep up with the chain, letting you validate it and make sure some centralized cartel of miners aren't trying to rip you off via inflation.

For an acceptably low orphan rate, say 2%, you need a much faster connection that a 56k modem, because you need to be able to download a whole block within a about 10 seconds.

Zangelbert Bingledack

legendary

Activity: 1036

Merit: 1000

Quote from: hazek on February 20, 2013, 03:15:26 PM

Then those who can't afford to run a full node right now are must understand that they are using Bitcoin without their explicit consent to what rules Bitcoin functions under. That their wealth is in the hands of those who can.

Big whoop. Unless you live self-sufficiently in the mountains, every last morsel of food, all your clothing and shelter and everything else that constitutes your livelihood comes only at the discretion of others. This is the modern economic reality, and by the way it is wonderful.

This myth that Bitcoin gives you total control over your money isn't helpful; you'll always be at the mercy of the herd - this is how civilization works, and this is how Bitcoin works. It is not the rules that give Bitcoin its stability and reliability, but rather the consistency over time in the beliefs and desires of those who participate in this social experiment.

This blocksize change will only be an problem if people manufacture one out of it.

misterbigg

legendary

Activity: 1064

Merit: 1001

Quote from: greyhawk on February 20, 2013, 03:08:06 PM

You're priviledged in your space and bandwith capacity. What about those not so lucky? Those on volume capped lines? What about Africa, where most people outside of major cities still connect via 56k dial-up if even?

Clearly, there needs to be some sort of minimum requirements. Given that, there will always be people who cannot participate, since they do not meet the minimum requirements. Crippling Bitcoin by trying to creating accessibility for everyone is a fools errand. My personal opinion is that we should draw the line above dial-up. Sorry, but it's better to attack the problem of dial-up by societal pressure to upgrade their Internet connection rather than accommodating it in the Bitcoin protocol.

Besides, people have lousy Internet connections for economic and political reasons, not technical ones. The rise of Bitcoin as an alternative to the fiat banking monopoly should indirectly help with Internet access.

notig

sr. member

Activity: 294

Merit: 250

Quote from: greyhawk on February 20, 2013, 09:43:00 PM

So miners are the new banks. Fits exactly with my rant. Wink

Think of it this way... with the current artificial restriction on block size there is a certain limit on the supply of transactions. If more users use bitcoin (we all hope this right? Hopefully? ) Then that is more people competing to make transactions on the same network that is bottlenecked by a restriction. What this means is that it will cost more and MORE and MORE to simply make a transaction. You talk of eliminating people from being able to use bitcoin? That is the surest way to do it.

greyhawk

hero member

Activity: 938

Merit: 1009

So miners are the new banks. Fits exactly with my rant. Wink

notig

sr. member

Activity: 294

Merit: 250

Quote from: greyhawk on February 20, 2013, 09:24:01 PM

Quote from: evoorhees on February 20, 2013, 07:57:29 PM

I don't think any discussion of Bitcoin development should be based on assumptions that it's important to listen to those with 56.6kbps modems. Bitcoin should not be designed around the lowest common denominator of technology, just to dictate that "everyone can run it."

It should be usable by most people, but there's no reason to get hung up about fringe use cases like 56.6 modems.

56.6 is a fringe case? You people want Bitcoin to replace all world currencies. Do you even know what the world looks like? How over 20% of the world live on less than a dollar per day? How 15% of the world do not even have access to running water? And you want them to employ bitcoin?

Funny enough, I totally understand Hazek. Ultra-Randian as he is, he only cares about bitcoin benefiting his own mores. And that's good and fine, at least he's honest about it. But if you follow that route, know you're only just rebuilding exactly the same system as we already have, only the faces have changed. And then bitcoin becomes not so much about freeing the people from the restraints current economic and political structures forces upon them. It is about becoming the new arbiter of constraints oneself. It's about abolishing "dictatorship" to become the new dictator instead. It's about Iznogoud becoming "Calife A La Place Du Calife". It's about people being butt-hurt they can't succeed in the current environment wanting to become the God-Emperor of Dune.

He isn't talking about users of bitcoin. he is talking about MINERS. Already mining is somewhat exclusive. Think someone living on a dollar a day with a 56k modem is going to be able to afford an ASIC? What he is saying is that rather than trying to cater to 100% of people who can mine... it's better for the bitcoin network to have the grunt work(mining) done by users with decent internet connections. (which already prevail in the developed world). Otherwise the bitcoin network can't succeed because if it becomes more popular... then the network itself will be a bottleneck.

greyhawk

hero member

Activity: 938

Merit: 1009

Quote from: evoorhees on February 20, 2013, 07:57:29 PM

I don't think any discussion of Bitcoin development should be based on assumptions that it's important to listen to those with 56.6kbps modems. Bitcoin should not be designed around the lowest common denominator of technology, just to dictate that "everyone can run it."

It should be usable by most people, but there's no reason to get hung up about fringe use cases like 56.6 modems.

56.6 is a fringe case? You people want Bitcoin to replace all world currencies. Do you even know what the world looks like? How over 20% of the world live on less than a dollar per day? How 15% of the world do not even have access to running water? And you want them to employ bitcoin?

Funny enough, I totally understand Hazek. Ultra-Randian as he is, he only cares about bitcoin benefiting his own mores. And that's good and fine, at least he's honest about it. But if you follow that route, know you're only just rebuilding exactly the same system as we already have, only the faces have changed. And then bitcoin becomes not so much about freeing the people from the restraints current economic and political structures forces upon them. It is about becoming the new arbiter of constraints oneself. It's about abolishing "dictatorship" to become the new dictator instead. It's about Iznogoud becoming "Calife A La Place Du Calife". It's about people being butt-hurt they can't succeed in the current environment wanting to become the God-Emperor of Dune.

wtfvanity

hero member

Activity: 504

Merit: 500

WTF???

By increasing the limit by 1%, that decreases your ability to have a say and check it. And you're against that... wrong?

hazek

legendary

Activity: 1078

Merit: 1002

Quote from: wtfvanity on February 20, 2013, 09:08:47 PM

Quote from: acoindr on February 20, 2013, 08:34:45 PM

Quote from: evoorhees on February 20, 2013, 07:57:29 PM

I don't think any discussion of Bitcoin development should be based on assumptions that it's important to listen to those with 56.6kbps modems. Bitcoin should not be designed around the lowest common denominator of technology, just to dictate that "everyone can run it."

It should be usable by most people, but there's no reason to get hung up about fringe use cases like 56.6 modems.

hazek isn't arguing about 56.6 modems.

I think it's about balance. The thing is Bitcoin is billed as a currency that users can own, on their own. They don't have to trust anybody. The minute you start decreasing their ability to have a say (and check) of what goes on with the currency you've moved away from it being a currency they own on their own. That doesn't mean higher end users can't use it, but it pushes some people out.

To qualify as "grassroots" access I think you have to look at the typical technical capability of, say, average U.S. consumers. The world follows the U.S. as a benchmark on things (for example, see the Big Mac index). So, you want to grab technical specs from there I think, if it's a goal at all.

That's not what hazek is arguing. He doesn't want the block size limit changed PERIOD. Ignore the fact that he can easily confirm 10x the limit today on whatever laptop he's using, it's as is or he's out.

False and it's exactly what I'm arguing and I've explained this so many times already that if you don't understand by now I simply cannot bother to do it again.

wtfvanity

hero member

Activity: 504

Merit: 500

WTF???

Quote from: acoindr on February 20, 2013, 08:34:45 PM

Quote from: evoorhees on February 20, 2013, 07:57:29 PM

I don't think any discussion of Bitcoin development should be based on assumptions that it's important to listen to those with 56.6kbps modems. Bitcoin should not be designed around the lowest common denominator of technology, just to dictate that "everyone can run it."

It should be usable by most people, but there's no reason to get hung up about fringe use cases like 56.6 modems.

hazek isn't arguing about 56.6 modems.

I think it's about balance. The thing is Bitcoin is billed as a currency that users can own, on their own. They don't have to trust anybody. The minute you start decreasing their ability to have a say (and check) of what goes on with the currency you've moved away from it being a currency they own on their own. That doesn't mean higher end users can't use it, but it pushes some people out.

To qualify as "grassroots" access I think you have to look at the typical technical capability of, say, average U.S. consumers. The world follows the U.S. as a benchmark on things (for example, see the Big Mac index). So, you want to grab technical specs from there I think, if it's a goal at all.

That's not what hazek is arguing. He doesn't want the block size limit changed PERIOD. Ignore the fact that he can easily confirm 10x the limit today on whatever laptop he's using, it's as is or he's out.

wtfvanity

hero member

Activity: 504

Merit: 500

WTF???

Quote from: Piper67 on February 20, 2013, 08:22:13 PM

Hmmmm, so discarding the 1MB limit is actually going to be the cause of the libertarian fringe leaving Bitcoin? And it will allow the Bitcoin economy to grow?

I'm liking this idea more and more by the minute!

lol

acoindr

legendary

Activity: 1050

Merit: 1002

Quote from: evoorhees on February 20, 2013, 07:57:29 PM

I don't think any discussion of Bitcoin development should be based on assumptions that it's important to listen to those with 56.6kbps modems. Bitcoin should not be designed around the lowest common denominator of technology, just to dictate that "everyone can run it."

It should be usable by most people, but there's no reason to get hung up about fringe use cases like 56.6 modems.

hazek isn't arguing about 56.6 modems.

I think it's about balance. The thing is Bitcoin is billed as a currency that users can own, on their own. They don't have to trust anybody. The minute you start decreasing their ability to have a say (and check) of what goes on with the currency you've moved away from it being a currency they own on their own. That doesn't mean higher end users can't use it, but it pushes some people out.

To qualify as "grassroots" access I think you have to look at the typical technical capability of, say, average U.S. consumers. The world follows the U.S. as a benchmark on things (for example, see the Big Mac index). So, you want to grab technical specs from there I think, if it's a goal at all.

wtfvanity

hero member

Activity: 504

Merit: 500

WTF???

Quote from: hazek on February 20, 2013, 08:18:08 PM

And if I can't get that from Bitcoin, I'm out.

Piper67

legendary

Activity: 1106

Merit: 1001

Hmmmm, so discarding the 1MB limit is actually going to be the cause of the libertarian fringe leaving Bitcoin? And it will allow the Bitcoin economy to grow?

I'm liking this idea more and more by the minute!

notig

sr. member

Activity: 294

Merit: 250

Quote from: hazek on February 20, 2013, 02:47:13 PM

Because as Ben Franklin told a woman the Americans got a republic if they can keep it (turns out they couldn't) so too I'm here to tell you that you have an excellent money system on your hands, if you can keep it.

An excellent money system that can only handle 7 transactions per second. I think we are going to have to go with satoshi on this one.

Quote

Satoshi - October 04, 2010, 07:48:40 PM -It can be phased in, like:

if (blocknumber > 115000)
maxblocksize = largerlimit

It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.

When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade.

Kempelen

newbie

Activity: 33

Merit: 0

Quote from: hazek on February 20, 2013, 08:18:08 PM

I just want to make sure people understand that this isn't my argument at all. I don't care about those with 56.6k connections, I care about me. I don't care about the 1Mb limit, I care about me. I want to be a sovereign user of Bitcoin and I don't care about how that is achieved or what costs it carries. And if I can't get that from Bitcoin, I'm out.

Good riddance.

dave111223

legendary

Activity: 1190

Merit: 1001

Nothing like a bit of fear mongering to get people upgrading and running the latest full client... Roll Eyes

hazek

legendary

Activity: 1078

Merit: 1002

Quote from: evoorhees on February 20, 2013, 07:57:29 PM

I don't think any discussion of Bitcoin development should be based on assumptions that it's important to listen to those with 56.6kbps modems. Bitcoin should not be designed around the lowest common denominator of technology, just to dictate that "everyone can run it."

It should be usable by most people, but there's no reason to get hung up about fringe use cases like 56.6 modems.

I just want to make sure people understand that this isn't my argument at all. I don't care about those with 56.6k connections, I care about me. I don't care about the 1Mb limit, I care about me. I want to be a sovereign user of Bitcoin and I don't care about how that is achieved or what costs it carries. And if I can't get that from Bitcoin, I'm out.

It's really simple.

Piper67

legendary

Activity: 1106

Merit: 1001

It may also be worth considering that the majority of those of us running a full node might be more amenable to arguments from reason than to intransigent positions allegedly taken on principle, but which more and more sound like someone's painted themselves into an intellectual corner.

56.6k modem is unreasonable.

wtfvanity

hero member

Activity: 504

Merit: 500

WTF???

Quote from: evoorhees on February 20, 2013, 07:57:29 PM

I don't think any discussion of Bitcoin development should be based on assumptions that it's important to listen to those with 56.6kbps modems. Bitcoin should not be designed around the lowest common denominator of technology, just to dictate that "everyone can run it."

It should be usable by most people, but there's no reason to get hung up about fringe use cases like 56.6 modems.

That's not what havock is arguing for although he uses that argument for his argument. He wants bitcoin exactly the way it is no ifs and or buts about it.

Topic: Why the Bitcoin rules can't change (reading time ~5min) - page 7. (Read 11946 times)