Bitcoin Is Awesome

[Smoothie]

Figured I would post something here to get this section started.

There is so much controversy surrounding block size debate that price and sentiment is likely to slump in the near term.

 

[cypherdoc]

could be but price always starts going down despite good news and price always starts going up despite bad news.

so there.

 

[Smoothie]

You know I am a long term bull. But in the short term while this whole block size issue gets sorted out I can't see any major market moves to the upside happening.

The MAXIMUM POINT OF PAIN has not hit yet for miners and speculators.

 

[awemany]

The whole reason to make block size an issue might be to push down the price ...

 

[chainstor]

But to be fair, the awesomeness quotient (aq) of bitcoin should remain unaffected by market price? ;-)

 

[Melbustus]

Maybe, but we also may be coming out of it now that it's becoming clear that there's widespread support for either BIP100 or BIP101. Given that said support is formally coming out *before* the ScalingBitcoin conference in a few weeks, it seems likely that some solution along the lines of BIP100/101 will come out of that conference, and this whole controversy will fade away.

The annoying thing is that the media will still crow about the debate that "almost killed bitcoin", never understanding that this is how things work in bitcoin (public and messy debates), but that the core protocol was never actually threatened, since by definition bitcoin is whatever the majority of its users say it is by voting with the software they run.

 

[Stereotype]

BIP101 just hasnt gained traction, by the looks of this.... https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=178336.msg12268081#msg12268081

Actually, i think any media attention concerning this matter, can only be a good thing for more broad Bitcoin awareness. Could be the start of a new momentum.

 

[Flame]

This kind of stuff actually gives me confidence in Bitcoin. That the community can determine the direction and decide by consensus, that's one of the things I loved about Bitcoin initially and seeing it actually in practice is a great proof of concept for me. It's almost like Bitcoin is cleaning itself, people are trying to hold it down and cripple it but it's kicking them off by self governance. The technology evolves and won't stand still for those who are scared of change or who have vested interests, those people will hopefully be left in the dust in the end.

 

[awemany]

I'd be fine with BIP100 that *actually exists* (and is preferably somewhat tested) without a 32MB cap and w/o the 20% hostage.

Also /u/jstolfi on reddit made an important remark that the scheme in BIP100 is unstable and from that POV not really well thought out.

It is my hope and expectation that eventually we'll settle on BIP101 because it is sane and easy.

 

[chainstor]

I'd be fine with BIP100 that *actually exists* (and is preferably somewhat tested) without a 32MB cap and w/o the 20% hostage.

The other issue is that 100 'defaults' to a limit of just 1mb. Network lethargy could lead to a situation where no real change is made. The 32mb cap is important, as that is a protocol message limit as it stands, and other changes are required to go past this.

 

[Dbox]

With the global economic situation, and bitcoin community going through current split, it's certainly going to be popcorn time for the next six months.

 

[cypherdoc]

The other issue is that 100 'defaults' to a limit of just 1mb. Network lethargy could lead to a situation where no real change is made. The 32mb cap is important, as that is a protocol message limit as it stands, and other changes are required to go past this.

Gavin said that 32MB message limit was dropped to 2MB a couple of updates ago. however, in 101, he is allowing the message limit to scale directly with blocksize only as it advances. quite clever actually.

With the global economic situation, and bitcoin community going through current split, it's certainly going to be popcorn time for the next six months.

yep.

it's my contention that Bitcoin missed a major opportunity to ramp in price due to this blocksize turmoil. we almost broke out but fell back as the divisiveness spiked.

 

[Dbox]

Agreed, such a shame. Having said that, it's not like I'd want to pull out of bitcoin any time soon so it's all good if you're not investing money you need right now.

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

To me, it's only a matter of whether we get a big rise soon-ish because Core implements bigger blocks, or a gigantic rise later-ish because Bitcoin dev becomes decentralized away from Core.

 

[awemany]

The other issue is that 100 'defaults' to a limit of just 1mb. Network lethargy could lead to a situation where no real change is made. The 32mb cap is important, as that is a protocol message limit as it stands, and other changes are required to go past this.

Having a temporary, technical 32MB limit is obviously fine. But I think you should be careful to look at all levels this proposal will be evaluated in: It isn't only a technical proposal about detailed code changes, signing off on it will also be seen as a political statement. And the way the 32MB are worded in the proposal make them clearly sound like an intent, like an ought-to-be-limit. A new limit at 32MB that will be very entrenched than and even harder - maybe impossible - to overcome.

If anything, the language around the 32MB should be cleared up: "There's currently a 32MB limit that will take further code work to remove, but the intent of this proposal is to let Bitcoin scale eventually beyond any fixed limit. Referring to this 32MB limit is not meant as an endorsement of any fixed limit."

That's not the way it is worded, though.

 

[cypherdoc]

@awemany

That's a great suggestion for 100; long term intent for the 32mb limit to be removed. Not that I'm necessarily confident it would be removed when we get there without a huge food fight.

 

[awemany]

Maybe so. But without that intent (and a sane cap on the amount of influence of small miners), BIP100 is IMO palatable. I'd still prefer BIP101 due to simplicity. I think that the big frontend players (Coinbase etc.) who supported BIP101 should start advertising for it soon. Because the whole 'we're independent, we'll simply stay out of the debate' approach doesn't work anymore anyways. The community broke apart and now it is a cold harsh world of many special interests fighting for their territory. I guess it has been that all the way, but now that reality is very visible.

I also expect (due to the breakup, the whole discussion is very much in a lull, should I say hangover?) that the former 'Core' developers won't be the ones coming ahead out of this. Basically, if Greg had decentralization in mind, it will soon be visible that he lost the last grip and power he had on influencing his beloved decentralization by completely overplaying his hand.

Development decentralization OTOH, I very much welcome and I expect it to be a clear to most parties that this is very much the case now, soon.

At that point, I'll also expect development to pick up again (in the various implementations of the various factions) - and the fight for influence of a particular implementation to be more open, even more political, but also more honest.

 

[cypherdoc]

@awemany

I agree. 101 is more efficient and less political of all the choices. As a compromise, it is acceptable to me.

Forking away from Maxwell is almost as important.

And you're right, if the major merchants want to have a voice in the outcome, they need to get more aggressive. The miners don't have any problem with that.

 

[dgenr8]

@cypherdoc, I'm reminded that the smartest people I've met are those who, like Satoshi, make everything sound sensible.

I try to ignore those who make things sound confusing.