In principle the market can govern also this parameter (and it does, through already existing altcoins). My guess is that there will always be a market for the existing reward plan, therefore a change will mean a permanent chain fork (the original chain will never die).
Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.
- Thread starter cypherdoc
- Start date
My thoughts exactly. The BIP101 trajectory is now ingrained in everyone's mind. I believe is is the natural Schelling point around which consensus will emerge.
My New Year's Resolution: I will support Maxwell's Scaling Plan for Core:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3z1e83/new_years_resolution_i_will_support_maxwells/
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3z1e83/new_years_resolution_i_will_support_maxwells/
So where was this big December announcement that was hinted at.
If it was that Coinbase was going to switch to running and XT node, then there is a serious problem as it means the non-blockstream companies are not willing to take a leadership position.
[doublepost=1451507068][/doublepost]
If it was that Coinbase was going to switch to running and XT node, then there is a serious problem as it means the non-blockstream companies are not willing to take a leadership position.
[doublepost=1451507068][/doublepost]
From that perspective then Gavin does not even need to freeze the github account, he can just let Maxwell freeze it himself. This avoids all of the fallout and attacks, and lets the consequences of a core freeze fall entirely on Maxwell.
Last edited:
Zarathustra
Well-Known Member
- Aug 28, 2015
- 1,439
- 3,797
I think, looking back in regards to XT, mistakes were made. Not because of anyone's fault and I don't think anyone is to blame, but it's just how things went in the circumstances. If we are to see realistically, XT has become a stale, old and tainted thing.
BU is the new hip stuff and cuts through. So far the other side has been able to only criticise etc, latching to the status quo sort of thing, focusing their points on what if this, what if that. This has obfuscated their position in my view and XT sort of gave them amo.
In some ways the real debate has not even started because they have been able to demonise by criticising. The argument... well bring your own options, bring your how, why, when, didn't need to be addressed because all they needed to "win" was to make XT loose and fear/scaremongering is unfortunately often pretty effective if it contains any, however small and out of hand not dismissible, truth.
I've had the opportunity of speaking to some of the more influential small blockers about BU and their arguments so far are from what I can see very ineffective and even comical. They'll be embarrassed to repeat it twice in public.
BU forces them to reveal their true position, that is this settlement thing. We have not addressed the settlement proposal heads on even after some months of debate because the small blockers have tried by all means to avoid it as they know there is no public support for it whatever. They have instead focused on bringing down the alternative, and by definition when there is no alternative the settlement thing wins by default.
There is no criticism they can make towards BU however that in any way has any persuasive power, so they either have to change their position or argue honestly and make the ridiculousness of their position apparent.
Moreover, miners have rejected XT. It is not for me to decide whether rightly or wrong, that's for historians, but they have raised concerns, whether rightly or wrongly, and if we are to think they are self interested parties with a lot to lose and win then we necessarily need to conclude that some of their concerns are valid and need to be addressed.
As we are seeing from the blocksize question, there is a delicate balance between miners and the economic majority. When miners are 100% in agreement as shown by only 3 xt blocks, and the economic majority on the other hand is too 100% in agreement in the opposite direction as shown by all statements, both sides are deeply hurt if they decide to engage in a game of who has the upper hand, therefore both sides are hugely incentivised to come to a solution that benefits both.
The miners are saying that XT may hurt them and their decision says to us that they think it is not in their self interest to adopt XT. We don't want to hurt the miners nor their self interest. The miners have in many ways a bigger incentive than most of us as single individuals, so we need to take account of their concerns.
Even more incentivised however are the businesses (the proxy of us, the users) and the miners do not want to hurt the businesses. Nor do the businesses want to hurt the miners. They are fully dependent on each other. If one is hurt, both are hurt. And there comes BU, offering the perfect solution, calming miner's worries while allowing the businesses to survive, grow and thrive.
Some spanner was thrown into the works however by what can be called ideologues who care not about our imperfect world but about some utopian deluded ideal. They have no self interest and can be considered to be drones. They care not of anything but their delusions and are willing to go to all lengths. Hence the DDoss, the censoring, etc. while at all times social engineering the debate so that their actual aims are not questioned. This, coupled with the isolation of the devs and their escape from light, thus making them highly vulnerable to manipulation, did not provide the opportunity for their premises to be questioned ad initio, rationally debated, and thus dismissed.
Instead a political situation of extremes was created which led to what in a healthy situation should not happen. The economic majority 100% in favour of XT and the miners almost 100% against it. Now that we have unanimous agreement however and the question proposed is whether to raise the blocksize to 2mb, it hopefully will become apparent to all what has been going on because they will be forced to argue their true postion which does not stand light for 2 seconds, but hopefully we all learn our lessons.
The businesses are hurting. The miners do not want to hurt the businesses, hence BTCC and even before that, the miners letter for 8mb. BU bridges all these interests and the BU approach can not persuasively be questioned.
So hopefully we can manage to bring light to the blocksize question, and so show that there was never really any division, but what was manufactured.
BU is the new hip stuff and cuts through. So far the other side has been able to only criticise etc, latching to the status quo sort of thing, focusing their points on what if this, what if that. This has obfuscated their position in my view and XT sort of gave them amo.
In some ways the real debate has not even started because they have been able to demonise by criticising. The argument... well bring your own options, bring your how, why, when, didn't need to be addressed because all they needed to "win" was to make XT loose and fear/scaremongering is unfortunately often pretty effective if it contains any, however small and out of hand not dismissible, truth.
I've had the opportunity of speaking to some of the more influential small blockers about BU and their arguments so far are from what I can see very ineffective and even comical. They'll be embarrassed to repeat it twice in public.
BU forces them to reveal their true position, that is this settlement thing. We have not addressed the settlement proposal heads on even after some months of debate because the small blockers have tried by all means to avoid it as they know there is no public support for it whatever. They have instead focused on bringing down the alternative, and by definition when there is no alternative the settlement thing wins by default.
There is no criticism they can make towards BU however that in any way has any persuasive power, so they either have to change their position or argue honestly and make the ridiculousness of their position apparent.
Moreover, miners have rejected XT. It is not for me to decide whether rightly or wrong, that's for historians, but they have raised concerns, whether rightly or wrongly, and if we are to think they are self interested parties with a lot to lose and win then we necessarily need to conclude that some of their concerns are valid and need to be addressed.
As we are seeing from the blocksize question, there is a delicate balance between miners and the economic majority. When miners are 100% in agreement as shown by only 3 xt blocks, and the economic majority on the other hand is too 100% in agreement in the opposite direction as shown by all statements, both sides are deeply hurt if they decide to engage in a game of who has the upper hand, therefore both sides are hugely incentivised to come to a solution that benefits both.
The miners are saying that XT may hurt them and their decision says to us that they think it is not in their self interest to adopt XT. We don't want to hurt the miners nor their self interest. The miners have in many ways a bigger incentive than most of us as single individuals, so we need to take account of their concerns.
Even more incentivised however are the businesses (the proxy of us, the users) and the miners do not want to hurt the businesses. Nor do the businesses want to hurt the miners. They are fully dependent on each other. If one is hurt, both are hurt. And there comes BU, offering the perfect solution, calming miner's worries while allowing the businesses to survive, grow and thrive.
Some spanner was thrown into the works however by what can be called ideologues who care not about our imperfect world but about some utopian deluded ideal. They have no self interest and can be considered to be drones. They care not of anything but their delusions and are willing to go to all lengths. Hence the DDoss, the censoring, etc. while at all times social engineering the debate so that their actual aims are not questioned. This, coupled with the isolation of the devs and their escape from light, thus making them highly vulnerable to manipulation, did not provide the opportunity for their premises to be questioned ad initio, rationally debated, and thus dismissed.
Instead a political situation of extremes was created which led to what in a healthy situation should not happen. The economic majority 100% in favour of XT and the miners almost 100% against it. Now that we have unanimous agreement however and the question proposed is whether to raise the blocksize to 2mb, it hopefully will become apparent to all what has been going on because they will be forced to argue their true postion which does not stand light for 2 seconds, but hopefully we all learn our lessons.
The businesses are hurting. The miners do not want to hurt the businesses, hence BTCC and even before that, the miners letter for 8mb. BU bridges all these interests and the BU approach can not persuasively be questioned.
So hopefully we can manage to bring light to the blocksize question, and so show that there was never really any division, but what was manufactured.
Last edited:
albin
Active Member
- Nov 8, 2015
- 931
- 4,008
Maybe a clear way to express the political distinctions is one of project scope.
The most clear-cut expression of the one side that I get from Gavin's writing is the idea that scope should be use-case agnostic, so as not to pick winners and losers. Whereas from say your Trace Mayer "Why hire Bitcoin?" side, the belief is that a pre-ordained use-case should decide project scope.
The most clear-cut expression of the one side that I get from Gavin's writing is the idea that scope should be use-case agnostic, so as not to pick winners and losers. Whereas from say your Trace Mayer "Why hire Bitcoin?" side, the belief is that a pre-ordained use-case should decide project scope.
To Trace: You don't hire Bitcoin, you hire the nodes and miners that support your use case (if there are any). You cannot will them into existence through developer lock-in (convenience barrier).
Melbustus
Active Member
- Aug 28, 2015
- 237
- 884
One of the most frustrating aspects of this whole affair is how supposedly free-market guys like Trace (and many others) are arguing for what amounts to centralized economic control, and are showing extremely limited understanding of the unrestrained free-market's power to arrive at solutions.
But I guess one doesn't know who *really* supports and understands free-market dynamics until there's a key decision to make that involves the economics.
To understand the decision making power of miners over users, we only need to look at Bitcoin's design.
The only action miners perform in Bitcoin is to determine the order of transactions. That is it. If a transaction is located earlier in a chain, then that transaction happened first and there can be no disagreement. However they do not specify specify anything else including Bitcoin's consensus rules.
The rules are defined by the users in the form of which blocks/chains they accept as valid. Miners have to operate within those rules, or no one accepts the blocks they produce. Miners are completely constrained by what rules users decide to accept as valid rules.
For example, even if 90% of miners started to issue blocks with 50BTC coinbase rewards, they still could not change Bitcoin's reward schedule simply because users would reject those blocks, no matter how long of a chain the miners produce. A 51% attack can ONLY change transaction ordering, it can not change anything else.
If users tomorrow decided to only accept BIP101 blocks, then miners have zero say over that decision. Even if 90% of the hash power stayed with non-BIP101 blocks it wouldn't matter, the users would follow the shorter chain produced by the 10% supporting miners because the other blocks would be rejected as invalid.
This is why all the arguments saying Chinese miners want this or that is absurd. Miners perform a transaction ordering service only, they do not get to dictate anything else to users. If a majority of miners refuse to mine larger blocks, the users can simply decide to ignore the laggards holding the network back.
Last edited:
Richy_T
Well-Known Member
- Dec 27, 2015
- 1,085
- 2,741
On the upside, it's now 2016. Things which seemed to be something to worry about sometime in the future are now something that will appear more imminent. Things should start happening.
VeritasSapere
Active Member
- Nov 16, 2015
- 511
- 1,266
brg444 closed the notorious #rekt thread. I have been involved in the discussions on in this thread almost from the beginning. Lets hope that one day these pages will contribute to the annals of history. I suspect that most of the discussion will just move to other threads or hopefully even better this forum, I would welcome more critics among our ranks. It went out with a bang, I think the points that I was arguing came across well at the very end and I described Bitcoin Unlimited as the synthesis of the blocksize debate, transcending it. With my final post arguing how Satoshi's original vision is important to consider for these questions. So I think I ended it well at least, somewhat good timing in some ways.
Thank you to everyone that has contributed to this thread, from supporters of the cause to sincere critics, to just people seeking answers. Even the trolls had a role in this process. Freedom might be messy but in the end it is worth it.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1162684.msg13422140#msg13422140
Thank you to everyone that has contributed to this thread, from supporters of the cause to sincere critics, to just people seeking answers. Even the trolls had a role in this process. Freedom might be messy but in the end it is worth it.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1162684.msg13422140#msg13422140
Last edited:
How come nobody ever asks brg444 any of these questions?
- Who are you?
- How long have you been involved in Bitcoin?
- Why do you think an account registered in 2014 can get away with making shill accusations against people who've been involved since 2010 or earlier?
Melbustus
Active Member
- Aug 28, 2015
- 237
- 884
@VeritasSapere - Nice, I'd count that a win. brg censored his own thread via termination because he couldn't censor each post (he noted he regretted not making it self-mod)! That's hilarious...
VeritasSapere
Active Member
- Nov 16, 2015
- 511
- 1,266
It really is, he went out with ad hominem while promoting censorship. While at the same time essentially saying that freedom of speech does a disservice to his cause. He went on by insulting many people without any grounds while being very disrespectful, at least the guy is consistent.
This does very much feel like a victory to me.
This does very much feel like a victory to me.
- Aug 22, 2015
- 1,558
- 4,693
@VeritasSapere
Well done on your heroic efforts in that thread.
Well done on your heroic efforts in that thread.
chainstor
New Member
- Aug 28, 2015
- 16
- 25
A victory indeed. The parody renamed thread has been censored already - its been moved to the altcoin section.
To quote brg444 himself - "The butthurt is huge"
To quote brg444 himself - "The butthurt is huge"