Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[albin]

@lunarboy

I find Mike Hearn's take on the issue the most rational, basically to paraphrase what he said on Epicenter Bitcoin a few months back, you tackle bottlenecks one by one as they come over time.

Whereas with the small block argument from motivation, it's like they're arbitrarily imagining bottlenecks ahead of time, and then artificially-engineering a crisis. It's a bizarre perspective, because if the people advocating manipulating the community just worked on the optimizations they were concerned about in the first place, then there would be no problem even from their perspective.

Intentionally allowing a blockspace capacity crisis to come is basically the same kind of thinking behind a false flag terror attack.

 

[rocks]

The blocksize issue is the most serious threat to bitcoin's long-term potential that I've seen yet. Regulation, Mt. Gox, 90% price drops, etc, are all minor issues in the long-run, but a fixed blocksize, and more generally, bitcoin showing no ability to adapt, could be catestrophic.

This 1,000 times. Satoshi's design made Bitcoin impervious to external threats due to the fact that it is entirely self-contained with no external dependencies. This means anything outside of Bitcoin (such as gov regulation) cannot affect the way Bitcoin functions, it can only affect how people interact with Bitcoin.

The blocksize issue however is an internal threat to Satoshi's design, and the only one that exists at that. The blocksize cap limits Bitcoin's functionality because it is a self imposed internal limit, and so is able to prevent proper functionality in a manner no government regulation could. This is why the issue is so important to correct. If the blocksize cap is corrected, I am confident the Bitcoin economy will self-adjust as needed, but if it is not corrected the experiment is not just at risk but likely doomed.

In retrospect it was a flaw on Satoshi's part to put the limit in on the first place. When he added it, he inserted the first and only internal threat to Bitcoin, and a significant one at that. He clearly thought everyone would agree to just increase it when needed, but failed to see that there was a non-zero possibility it wouldn't or couldn't be increased, and because it was an internal threat any non-zero possibility was too high. A much better fix would have been to add the cap as a self adjusting limiter to x % over the past n block average, which would have been just as easy to add, but would have allowed for scaling over time.

It would be a shame if the blocksize issue damages or even kills the experiment

 

[rocks]

@lunarboy
I find Mike Hearn's take on the issue the most rational, basically to paraphrase what he said on Epicenter Bitcoin a few months back, you tackle bottlenecks one by one as they come over time.

Whereas with the small block argument from motivation, it's like they're arbitrarily imagining bottlenecks ahead of time, and then artificially-engineering a crisis.

Mike's statements reflect the reality of large scale software development. One example is Google's webcrawler, there was a paper awhile ago that described how Google rewrote the engine, from scratch, something like five times in seven years.

The reason isn't that Google doesn't know how to write software, it is that as you scale you learn about new challenges and then find solutions to them as you come across them.

The core devs do not seem to understand some of these basic principles.

 

[AdrianX]

I wonder if one of these days an altcoin that wants to make a name for itself will create giant empty blocks just to show it can be done. Just like how the CoinValidation scare caused the altcoin narrative to shift toward anonymity resulting in Dash/Monero/Bytecoin/ Cloakcoin/BitcoinDark, the blocksize scare could eventually produce "BigBlockCoin." Maybe it will even be an existing coin like Litecoin or Doge.

The goal post has moved again. The reason we cant have big blocks has switched from technical to philosophical - its to prevent centralization.

 

[AdrianX]

This 1,000 times. Satoshi's design made Bitcoin impervious to external threats due to the fact that it is entirely self-contained with no external dependencies. This means anything outside of Bitcoin (such as gov regulation) cannot affect the way Bitcoin functions, it can only affect how people interact with Bitcoin.

The blocksize issue however is an internal threat to Satoshi's design, and the only one that exists at that. The blocksize cap limits Bitcoin's functionality because it is a self imposed internal limit, and so is able to prevent proper functionality in a manner no government regulation could. This is why the issue is so important to correct. If the blocksize cap is corrected, I am confident the Bitcoin economy will self-adjust as needed, but if it is not corrected the experiment is not just at risk but likely doomed.

In retrospect it was a flaw on Satoshi's part to put the limit in on the first place. When he added it, he inserted the first and only internal threat to Bitcoin, and a significant one at that. He clearly thought everyone would agree to just increase it when needed, but failed to see that there was a non-zero possibility it wouldn't or couldn't be increased, and because it was an internal threat any non-zero possibility was too high. A much better fix would have been to add the cap as a self adjusting limiter to x % over the past n block average, which would have been just as easy to add, but would have allowed for scaling over time.

It would be a shame if the blocksize issue damages or even kills the experiment

I think Satoshi is an intelligent being. The Block size cap is here for a reason, and it's an issue at this time to vaccinate against future attacks. I think if Satoshi has influence he may be egging the naive theymos on to help decentralize communication channels too.

 

[CryptoDesigner]

I did a video about how gold is traded sometimes.. also comparing it with Bitcoin
Bitcoin, a gold dealers worst nightmare - Financial collapse is coming !


Bitcoin is a digital token(money) that you store on a decentralized network.. where security is kept without the need for violence and no trust in middle men is needed(it's p2p) to transact also you can get instant global access to your funds without carrying a 2 ton safe around full of gold or dollars open for governments and thieves to steal. Simply by remembering a key in your head you can access your funds, all you need is an internet connection. So consider how safe is your gold or fiat dollar when it’s “protected” by greedy governments and thieves that in reality at any time can come a take your money to finance evil war only to enrich themselves an enslave you. Bitcoin is a tool to bring down governments and end wars.. A new elite is rising and it’s the Bitcoin people. See you in fiat hell or Bitcoin paradise.. the choice is yours !

For daily Bitcoin related videos follow me here :
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwX2XQNj9HBdsVL_X67BFEQ/videos

 

[Peter R]

Beatrice! Beatrice!!

 

[lunar]

In retrospect it was a flaw on Satoshi's part to put the limit in on the first place. When he added it, he inserted the first and only internal threat to Bitcoin

I've always felt this to have been Satoshis biggest planning error, and had this been a 'simple' centralized google issue it would have been fixed it long ago. It's also, in my mind probably Gavin's biggest regret. If he'd have foreseen this crazy stonewalling deadlock it could have been his last big fix before handing the lead reigns over.

I bet, given a second chance Gavin would have made a call for blocksize scaling BIPs, and had them all scrutinized and debated over for a period of a few months. Then finally just implemented the lead contender. Problem solved.

 

[sickpig]

brain dump on the max block size issue (random order):

• not lifting the cap would change the economic conditions under which btc has operated till now.

• what are those decentralized metrics upon which we have to evaluate different scaling proposal?

• two davecgh (btcd developer) very good points:

• • "[switching] to a different incompatible rule set would require redownloading the chain against the active rule set"
  • "We don't believe that we, as developers, should be dictating economic policy"

• we should gather core devs' quotes about blocksize/scaling solutions in a systematic way . Ideally we should have a shared resource where everybody could add new information (be it a wiki, a git repo, a therad in this forum or whatever we see fit).

• a part from this email on btc dev ml is there any other place where I could find resources that describe gmax flexcap proposal

I'm pretty sure that the first item on the above list is the minimum common denominator that all parties involved have to agree upon if we want civil and constructive debate to develop.

 

[chriswilmer]

Why are Gavin and Mike so quiet? It would be nice to hear updates from them more often on what they're up to.

 

[cypherdoc]

aaand, the bounce is gone:

i think we're getting close to the roll. ideally, i'd like to see the $DJI get over the top of the earlier in the month's highs for max pain to bears before rolling. the internals of this bounce are exceedingly poor:

silver eating it. yes, i still weep at night about ZSL (not really):

Copper. yeah sure the economy is healthy:

 

[rocks]

@chriswilmer
Have you seen some of the comments on reddit and bitcointalk? There are a sizable number of people on both platforms that just attack Gavin and Mike in the most aggressive manner possible. This is after they have worked hard for months to present sensible views in a polite and engaging way. I would get tired of engaging also.

Their disengagement is worrisome. They might be seeing the writing on the wall where the blockstream core devs have taken over the project and are taking it in a direction contrary to what makes sense. The BS devs have basically banned Mike and Gavin, they want no outside influence and are working on a model of complete control, enabled by Thermos' actions. I would start to disengage also.

 

[cypherdoc]

Op-Ed: Has Anyone Noticed Bitcoin’s Value Crushing Gold & Silver Over the Last 5 Years?

http://dcebrief.com/op-ed-has-anyone-noticed-bitcoins-value-crushing-gold-silver-over-last-5-years/

 

[albin]

I found this trip down memory lane utterly fascinating. I wasn't aware at the time, but in retrospect it's amazing how he proactively tries to micromanage your perception of him, introducing allegations that alot of folks came to believe about him anyway:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=225463.0

This is also a gem that tells the future:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=15672.msg1873483#msg1873483

Oh the ignominy of it - stuck in the newbie bin after 24 years of internet use, 18 years of linux, 30 years of programming from z80 assembler and up, debating C++ template semantics with Stroustrupp while I was writing a parallelizing C++ source to source translator (before I evolved into a philosophically an anti-C++ person preferring C), enjoying USENET flame wars in the old days and tittering about newbies ineptitude

Emphasis added. Some things never change.

This dude is just bad karma all around.

 

[lunar]

@rocks

I find that type of behaviour unappreciative, disrespectful and can only conclude these type of comments are coming from morons plus a contingency of sponsored trolls deliberately trying to sabotage their influential roles in development.

Fortunately both Gavin and Mike have thick enough skins to see through the constant barrage of FUD. It must cause some despondency though, I feel for them.

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

@theZerg

I can't find the link, but it was around spring this year, somewhere on reddit. Here's a thread where Greg is unusually verbal about his thoughts:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/37vg8y/is_the_blockstream_company_the_reason_why_4_core/

 

[theZerg]

I found this trip down memory lane utterly fascinating. I wasn't aware at the time, but in retrospect it's amazing how he proactively tries to micromanage your perception of him, introducing allegations that alot of folks came to believe about him anyway:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=225463.0

This is also a gem that tells the future:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=15672.msg1873483#msg1873483

Emphasis added. Some things never change.

This dude is just bad karma all around.

Also "before I evolved into a philosophically an anti-C++ person preferring C". Regardless of your personal opinion, everybody uses C++ now. And if you don't like the C++ philosophy (vs C), you are probably rejecting OOP in general since that was C++'s big feature. So this basically means you reject every major language in use today.

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

@rocks, @lunarboy

I agree that in the near term Satoshi and Gavin made a mistake leaving the cap in, but taking a longer term view I continue to think it simply forces the community of stakeholders to face issues earlier on that we would have had to face later anyway. It frontloads the challenge for a bigger payoff in the future.

Without the blocksize cap, development and communication wouldn't yet have taken any steps toward decentralization. Perhaps the 32MB cap would have arisen as an issue instead, or perhaps the increasing dogmatism toward Core would have allowed Blockstream to push through any changes they wanted with Theymos turning on the censorship juice when /r/Bitcoin reached 2,000,000 subscribers instead of 170,000.

The cap forces the issue on dev and comm decentralization now, which would have been massive millstones around Bitcoin's neck as we entered quintuple digits. Now the question is whether the community - including devs and others who may have been watching from the sidelines discouraged by Core's lock on development - can rise to the challenge.

 

[Peter R]

I found this trip down memory lane utterly fascinating. I wasn't aware at the time, but in retrospect it's amazing how he proactively tries to micromanage your perception of him, introducing allegations that alot of folks came to believe about him anyway:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=225463.0

This is also a gem that tells the future:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=15672.msg1873483#msg1873483



Emphasis added. Some things never change.

This dude is just bad karma all around.

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

Joiners care about image.