you wanna see volatility?
watch the $DJI at 11:00AM when the FOMC announces. Bitcoin looks tame in comparison.
watch the $DJI at 11:00AM when the FOMC announces. Bitcoin looks tame in comparison.
Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.
- Thread starter cypherdoc
- Start date
Speaking of subjects to broach, some people owe Mike Hearn an apology:
That's my position too. It doesn't matter where the limit is or how the limit is adjusted, so long as the limit is always greater than the free-market equilibrium block size.
One idea I had was what if we just pushed for a simple jump to 8 MB and a command-line option for users to adjust the limit if necessary in the future. The BIP101 trajectory is probably enough of a Schelling curve that we'd end up following it anyways.
This also meshes nicely with the vision behind Bitcoin Unlimited.
I also think it's hard to overestimate the effect of simply overcoming the static friction of
- "1MB = sacred"
- "hard forking = dangerous"
- "bigger blocks = worse network health"
albin
Active Member
- Nov 8, 2015
- 931
- 4,008
I don't agree with Garzik totally about all the issues surrounding blocksize, but I feel like we would be in much better shape if he were the lead maintainer for Core, instead of Wladimir asking "how high" whenever gmax says "jump". Very admirable level of civility and professionalism.
we all need to give @jgarzik kudos for taking 100 off the table. he is a reasonable core dev.
i personally think it's a big deal, as now miners have to/should take down the 100 block versioning broadcasts which make the odds of 101 much greater.
i personally think it's a big deal, as now miners have to/should take down the 100 block versioning broadcasts which make the odds of 101 much greater.
What was this before it got deleted?
EDIT: Nevermind, reddit is apparently having some technical issues recently.
Last edited:
Thanks for the explanation.
If that is the case, the core client is a dead end then. All projects need a clear vision on where they are going and what is the primary element to focus on. For many here that element is added functionality to enable large-scale scaling of the network.
It sounds that in the vacuum of no one broaching the subject, the current committers have simply asserted their views by default. Updates that follow their views go in, updates that do not are kicked out.
The choice of which vision to follow needs to come from the user base, not from github commit access. Hopefully the hints we have heard that some of the other large players are going to lay out a vision and alternative path actually happen.
Last edited:
lunar
Well-Known Member
- Aug 28, 2015
- 1,001
- 4,290
That's a very nice write up from Jeff. You can tell he is trying to walk a very tight line, presumably because he is worried about Maxwell, the Saruman wannabe, but he still finds it right to speak out, and do so fairly forcefully.
Jeff has a unique opportunity to make a name for himself, if he was inclined, because he is perceived as being in the middle and untainted. He further seems to be the embodiment of the ecosystem's current dilemma in trying to manage complex self interests with not wanting to lose "positions" and "favours".
You have the exchanges/users who of course can force a blocksize increase, but they would rather not for practical and other obvious reasons. You have Gavin who clearly knows where we have to go and how to get there, but has to manage all the other's practical considerations. You have Maxwell, the Saruman, who thinks he is smarter than even Sauron, and has somehow managed to acquire perceived control in informal ways, perhaps having learned from his experience while extensively contributing to wikipedia as to how to acquire informal authority and perceived "power" in open source systems and exercise it, hence the "magician" in our metaphor, (does anyone have a CV of gmax btw? I was trying to find his education/background, but without luck, it would prob be interesting if anyone can share it) who obviously is not in any way open to persuasion as he wants "my precious" at all costs and will, seemingly, go to all lengths to acquire it.
Then you have the miners who are most directly at risk of loosing their income, burn their investment, go bankrupt, etc as well as the ones who most directly profit from a wider network effect, higher prices, etc. Unfortunately there are some communication difficulties with some of them, so having a language and culture barrier. Stuff does still get through, but unfortunately the "barriers" do necessarily add complexity, but that seem to be changing and quickly.
However, because of this added complexity, it seems to me that the miners will not adopt BIP101, but they do seem to have full consensus, within their ranks, in favour of implementing 2-4-8, hopefully as soon as March. I'd, by far, have bip101 starting at 2mb so as to avoid another hardfork because there is no reason for it when we can just softfork down instead, but that seems unlikely to gain miner consensus. So, while 2-4-8 is not ideal, something is better than nothing. Furthermore, if they do go ahead with it, it will hopefully humble Emperor gmax, show that hardforks aint that bad, that increasing the limit isn't armagedon, etc., thus making the second hard fork easier (hopefully).
It further seems to me that the ecosystem is "mobalising". We can expect companies to perhaps form some sort of alliance, but even in it's absence, to hire reference developers. We can expect the miners to do so too. In fact there are indications/statements to suggest that they both are right now and as a matter of priority.
So, I am not sure what jgarzick is working on right now, but I am sure he can find handsome employment if he wished. Therefore, if I was in his position I would have no concern at all as his reputation is in no way tarnished, but, to the contrary, stands taller than gmax's et al.
Gmax on the other hand, even if he "wins", would find it to be a Pyrrhic victory, for despite his assertions that "bitcoin is impossible" or is only possible because of 1mb, he will find that bitcoin does work, its ingrained incentives do work, and that bitcoin was built and designed with the primary aim of routing around gollums, Sarumans, Saurons, their minions, "precious" rings of power. etc.
To conclude, I was reading some earlier comments and I'd say that there is no reason to lose faith. I have no doubt in my mind that the blocksize will be increased, and will do so within months. It is in the interest of every single stakeholder to do so, except for Sauron, thus it will be done.
Jeff has a unique opportunity to make a name for himself, if he was inclined, because he is perceived as being in the middle and untainted. He further seems to be the embodiment of the ecosystem's current dilemma in trying to manage complex self interests with not wanting to lose "positions" and "favours".
You have the exchanges/users who of course can force a blocksize increase, but they would rather not for practical and other obvious reasons. You have Gavin who clearly knows where we have to go and how to get there, but has to manage all the other's practical considerations. You have Maxwell, the Saruman, who thinks he is smarter than even Sauron, and has somehow managed to acquire perceived control in informal ways, perhaps having learned from his experience while extensively contributing to wikipedia as to how to acquire informal authority and perceived "power" in open source systems and exercise it, hence the "magician" in our metaphor, (does anyone have a CV of gmax btw? I was trying to find his education/background, but without luck, it would prob be interesting if anyone can share it) who obviously is not in any way open to persuasion as he wants "my precious" at all costs and will, seemingly, go to all lengths to acquire it.
Then you have the miners who are most directly at risk of loosing their income, burn their investment, go bankrupt, etc as well as the ones who most directly profit from a wider network effect, higher prices, etc. Unfortunately there are some communication difficulties with some of them, so having a language and culture barrier. Stuff does still get through, but unfortunately the "barriers" do necessarily add complexity, but that seem to be changing and quickly.
However, because of this added complexity, it seems to me that the miners will not adopt BIP101, but they do seem to have full consensus, within their ranks, in favour of implementing 2-4-8, hopefully as soon as March. I'd, by far, have bip101 starting at 2mb so as to avoid another hardfork because there is no reason for it when we can just softfork down instead, but that seems unlikely to gain miner consensus. So, while 2-4-8 is not ideal, something is better than nothing. Furthermore, if they do go ahead with it, it will hopefully humble Emperor gmax, show that hardforks aint that bad, that increasing the limit isn't armagedon, etc., thus making the second hard fork easier (hopefully).
It further seems to me that the ecosystem is "mobalising". We can expect companies to perhaps form some sort of alliance, but even in it's absence, to hire reference developers. We can expect the miners to do so too. In fact there are indications/statements to suggest that they both are right now and as a matter of priority.
So, I am not sure what jgarzick is working on right now, but I am sure he can find handsome employment if he wished. Therefore, if I was in his position I would have no concern at all as his reputation is in no way tarnished, but, to the contrary, stands taller than gmax's et al.
Gmax on the other hand, even if he "wins", would find it to be a Pyrrhic victory, for despite his assertions that "bitcoin is impossible" or is only possible because of 1mb, he will find that bitcoin does work, its ingrained incentives do work, and that bitcoin was built and designed with the primary aim of routing around gollums, Sarumans, Saurons, their minions, "precious" rings of power. etc.
To conclude, I was reading some earlier comments and I'd say that there is no reason to lose faith. I have no doubt in my mind that the blocksize will be increased, and will do so within months. It is in the interest of every single stakeholder to do so, except for Sauron, thus it will be done.
Last edited:
@Justus Ranvier
do you hv a link to that thread?
Charlie is being hugely dishonest, esp as lead dev of Litecoin.
[doublepost=1450291876][/doublepost]9 min to extreme fiat volatility...
do you hv a link to that thread?
Charlie is being hugely dishonest, esp as lead dev of Litecoin.
[doublepost=1450291876][/doublepost]9 min to extreme fiat volatility...
- Aug 29, 2015
- 536
- 2,597
Have any of the big investors been vocal on the block size limit issue? I would be interested to hear what people like Barry Silbert, Marc Andreesen, the Drapers, etc. think on this issue. I'm thinking about people currently buying in to Bitcoin and those connected to them. It also seems like they would be in a good position to talk to and influence miners, particularly those in China.
lunar
Well-Known Member
- Aug 28, 2015
- 1,001
- 4,290
@Justus Ranvier
You don't seem to be shadowbanned but your post is no longer showing up in that XT thread..
Does that mean forum #4 dead too?
You don't seem to be shadowbanned but your post is no longer showing up in that XT thread..
Does that mean forum #4 dead too?
That's an interesting comment. Is there a reason why it is not visible?
albin
Active Member
- Nov 8, 2015
- 931
- 4,008
I haven't seen any conclusive statements, but the big pop we had happened when Marc Andreesen started to liquidated Facebook Stock, so far he has liquidated $160 million in Facebook Stock. WOW.
Andreessen Horowitz has a meaningful investment in both Coinbase and 21 inc. I'd say hes invested in seeing organic bitcoin growth.
Given Coinbase has shown interest in supporting BIP101 and Andreesen is rather liquid, I'm thinking his money could be backing bigger blocks now.
He does not seem to be invested in the Blockstram model of squeezing value off the blockchain, and risking the opportunity bitcoin has to grow and disrupt.
The Winklevii have not been paying attention with a bawd statement saying they re watching. Ultimately I think they will support a bigger blocks. Given their trajectory, more users of the block chain the better. Their future relies on selling bitcoin and the more demand for blockchain transactions the easier it is to "cash out". (if they do)
I used to think Trace Mayer was a big holder but I'm not so sure anymore, looking at his stress when it comes to funding Armory.
imo if you are a big holder, small blocks centralize financial control, most big bitcoin investors are very small fish in a big pond of Forex and need diversification of financial control in a bigger bitcoin pool to win. (i.e. they need bigger blocks and more native blocchain users)
Last edited: