Roger_Murdock
Active Member
- Dec 17, 2015
- 223
- 1,453
I was thinking more about this idea of the "blocked stream." And the more I think about it, the more it strikes me that this is a really damn good analogy for our situation (Dad joke: it's also a really good dam analogy).
This analogy first gives us the idea of pressure. If increased transactional demand causes the equilibrium block size to be larger than the artificial limit, that's going to create well, pressure. Now some (who I'll allow to remain nameless) might hope that the pressure caused by blocking the stream(TM) will simply force more of the transactional flow to be diverted to their preferred off-chain solutions. But that can only work if the dam holds.
So focusing on another aspect of the analogy, what is this "dam" made of? Well, it turns out, nothing very substantial. We might think of one layer of the dam as the "inconvenience barrier," the fact that, until recently, it was kind of a pain for most users to mod the Core code to set their own block size limit parameters. Another layer might be thought of as the "psychological barrier." This one I think is well-illustrated by that cartoon I linked to the other day. Breaking down this barrier simply involves recognizing that Core is not Bitcoin, we already have the power to change the block size limit ourselves by choosing what code we run, and we should exercise that power because allowing the decision about a key economic parameter to be made in a centralized manner is incredibly dangerous. If I had to name a third layer, I might say the "collective action barrier," i.e., we can all raise the limit if a substantial number of us act in concert, but no one can raise it by themselves. (Frankly, I think this last one is pretty minor compared to the first two.)
This provides a good summary of why I'm so optimistic that the limit will get raised. The pressure that's attempting to sweep away the dam is only going to increase as blocks get fuller and fees start to rise significantly. (As far I can tell, as of right now, this pressure has barely even started.) In addition, the dam itself is beginning to weaken. The "inconvenience barrier" is being rapidly eroded by Bitcoin Unlimited. Bitcoin Unlimited and the ideas behind it are also contributing to the erosion of the "psychological barrier." Maybe it's my own bias, but just based on what I've seen in the past week, BU seems to be starting to capture mind share very quickly.
(As an aside, this analogy also provides a nice visual for my thoughts on the frequently voiced concern that the current obstruction will allow an alt-ledger to take over. To me, that would be sort of like our metaphorical river tunneling through a half mile of solid rock to flow through an alternate available channel. The market could do that if it had to. But it doesn't have to because it's not the path of least resistance. Again, our "dam" here is mostly an illusion.)
This analogy first gives us the idea of pressure. If increased transactional demand causes the equilibrium block size to be larger than the artificial limit, that's going to create well, pressure. Now some (who I'll allow to remain nameless) might hope that the pressure caused by blocking the stream(TM) will simply force more of the transactional flow to be diverted to their preferred off-chain solutions. But that can only work if the dam holds.
So focusing on another aspect of the analogy, what is this "dam" made of? Well, it turns out, nothing very substantial. We might think of one layer of the dam as the "inconvenience barrier," the fact that, until recently, it was kind of a pain for most users to mod the Core code to set their own block size limit parameters. Another layer might be thought of as the "psychological barrier." This one I think is well-illustrated by that cartoon I linked to the other day. Breaking down this barrier simply involves recognizing that Core is not Bitcoin, we already have the power to change the block size limit ourselves by choosing what code we run, and we should exercise that power because allowing the decision about a key economic parameter to be made in a centralized manner is incredibly dangerous. If I had to name a third layer, I might say the "collective action barrier," i.e., we can all raise the limit if a substantial number of us act in concert, but no one can raise it by themselves. (Frankly, I think this last one is pretty minor compared to the first two.)
This provides a good summary of why I'm so optimistic that the limit will get raised. The pressure that's attempting to sweep away the dam is only going to increase as blocks get fuller and fees start to rise significantly. (As far I can tell, as of right now, this pressure has barely even started.) In addition, the dam itself is beginning to weaken. The "inconvenience barrier" is being rapidly eroded by Bitcoin Unlimited. Bitcoin Unlimited and the ideas behind it are also contributing to the erosion of the "psychological barrier." Maybe it's my own bias, but just based on what I've seen in the past week, BU seems to be starting to capture mind share very quickly.
(As an aside, this analogy also provides a nice visual for my thoughts on the frequently voiced concern that the current obstruction will allow an alt-ledger to take over. To me, that would be sort of like our metaphorical river tunneling through a half mile of solid rock to flow through an alternate available channel. The market could do that if it had to. But it doesn't have to because it's not the path of least resistance. Again, our "dam" here is mostly an illusion.)
