Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

Roger_Murdock

Active Member
Dec 17, 2015
223
1,453
A forked version of Bitcoin is simply another altcoin option. In the end the best option will gain the most traction and win. If Blockstream coin refuses to scale, then either an altcoin or a Bitcoin fork altcoin will eventually win out. Neither of these need to start off at the launch point with "consensus", it just needs to be better and gain adoption over time.

Users who want to scale can simply decide for themselves to start to build better data structures. You don't need miners in China to do it. Once a better data structure (larger blocks) starts to be built, if it is the right option more people will start to use it. That is how "consensus" is built, by slow adoption over time, not getting everyone to move together at once.
I actually disagree that the "fork now, gain market share later" path is likely to be viable. The nature of money is that you want to own a piece of the ledger that you predict everyone else will want to own in the future when you go to access the stored value that your money represents. Those people in the future will have the same goal. So you've got predictions about others' future predictions about others' future predictions about others' future predictions etc., etc., etc. So how do all these people, present and future, coordinate to the degree necessary to make money actually useful? Via convergence on Schelling points. The version of the ledger / ledger-updating protocol that is currently economically dominant is a very powerful Schelling point. An analogy I've used before is:

Bitcoin is like a huge school of fish or herd of animals where all the individuals benefit from sticking together. Different individuals may have very strong opinions about which direction the herd should go in leading to heated disagreements, but almost everyone understands the importance of sticking together. The herd could split into two smaller herds but that would be really bad for everyone involved. (Think Metcalfe's law. A herd half the size might provide only one quarter the benefits to its members.) When there's disagreement about direction, the easiest path for the herd to take is to simply continue in the same direction. But when enough members feel strongly about making a change in direction (and can coordinate their move), they'll do so. If they have a majority, the vast majority of the herd will follow. The more that defect from the smaller herd, the more incentive there is to defect, creating an incredibly powerful positive feedback loop toward convergence on the new direction.

A minority fork / spinoff is like a minority of the herd simply striking off in a new direction, declaring: "We're tired of arguing. This new direction makes so much more sense. The rest of you will eventually figure that out and rejoin us." They might be right that the new direction is better and that the rest of the herd will eventually figure that out, but they're wrong to think that when that day comes the larger group is likely to join the smaller group. The larger group will simply start heading in the new direction itself. (And by that point, the smaller and far more vulnerable herd will likely have been picked off by predators or defected back to the safety of the majority.)
 
Last edited:

AdrianX

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
2,097
5,797
bitco.in
@Roger_Murdock & @rocks your both right, the biggest herd will be the one I want to be a part of.

If my assumptions are correct about bitcoin being prematurely optimized as a settlement network at the expense of growing the size of the herd, then should the demand for hard money grow the best solution will gain the most traction and win.

Forking bitcoin into another alt option is not a threat, it provides a market option, and the herd is going to go where it's best served. I think the time is ripe for hard money, and I think direct settlement between economic actors is where the opportunity is. I'm not interested in using someone's WoW money and settling under their terms.

If my receipt is not on the block chain it hasn't happened yet. LN is for micro payments and coffee, and is no reason to limit blockchain growth now and push me off the blockchain.

either way I'm part of both herds and can move between herds and influence the growth of the one that serves the whole better, and if it turns out that the bigger herd is still ignorant, well I'm blessed enough to own a little piece of the settlement network.
 

rocks

Active Member
Sep 24, 2015
586
2,284
I actually disagree that the "fork now, gain market share later" path is likely to be viable. The nature of money is that you want to own a piece of the ledger that you predict everyone else will want to own in the future when you go to access the stored value that your money represents.
If that was true then every alt coin and even bitcoin itself would be hopeless. Bitcoin is itself a fork from FED dollars and alt coins are forks to new genesis blocks. The reality is every single one, including Bitcoin, has taken a fork now and gain market share approach. That is exactly the path Bitcoin itself took.
[doublepost=1457509361,1457508648][/doublepost]
The larger group will simply start heading in the new direction itself. (And by that point, the smaller and far more vulnerable herd will likely have been picked off by predators or defected back to the safety of the majority.)
If that is what happens, then the fork was a success because it was a mechanism to force the main chain to follow what users want. The forked branch doesn't have to become the primary chain in the end, it just has to force the main chain to do what people want (or risk being abandoned).

That said, it is becoming clearer and clearer every day that the blockstream chain is not going to change.

Everyone here has spent 2 years now arguing for larger blocks, and it has resulted in nothing. Those that control the main chain have done the following: 1) They walled themselves off from discussions with other people by leaving BCT to moderated mailing list, this shows zero willingness to engage users 2) They have used blatant censorship on all forums to ban all opposing viewpoints (this entire thread was kicked out) 3) They have used FUD and outright lies to control miners 4) They have attacked Bitcoin as a payment system at every turn (RBF???).

There have been many excellent discussions here over the past 3-4 years, but these discussions have had zero relation to Bitcoin. Those who control Bitcoin refuse to hear anything being discussed here and fight any ideas that have developed here. Every concept and proposal discussed here will never even be heard by those that control Bitcoin, so everything discussed here has nothing to do with Bitcoin.

So what is the point? Well the point is to figure out how to implement a better system, not just talking in a closed circle while being completely ignored and banned by bitcoin core developers and chinese miners.

And as a final thought experiment, what happens in mid-April when a fork branch starts that can handle transaction throughput and quickly confirms all transactions, while at the same time the main chain is completely clogged and unusable with a massive and growing back log of transactions? Add onto that the opportunity for home mining just by running a node with zero risk if the chain does not succeed.
 
Last edited:

steffen

Active Member
Nov 22, 2015
118
163
Satoshi wants extreme privacy. But Satoshi, if you read this, you should really have a way for your allies to get in touch with you. I am sure some people could offer you win-win arrangements.
EDIT: I don't think Satoshi reads here. Bitco.in is not accessible over Tor.
@Bloomie, or whoever makes the decision: Can bitco.in be made accessible over Tor?
 

satoshis_sockpuppet

Active Member
Feb 22, 2016
776
3,312
If that was true then every alt coin and even bitcoin itself would be hopeless. Bitcoin is itself a fork from FED dollars and alt coins are forks to new genesis blocks. The reality is every single one, including Bitcoin, has taken a fork now and gain market share approach. That is exactly the path Bitcoin itself took.
100% Agree.
A fork is the power people have to get away from a hostile system. If and when such a point is reached is up to every body to decide for themselves. I'm sure we are at the point where such a fork is necessary, and as @rocks said, if the original chain adapts under the pressure, the fork worked as well.

Opposite to altcoins/genesis forks, Bitcoin forks have the huge advantage of preserving peoples holding and thus make it easier for people to switch and for holders to support a fork. And yes, as a holder, I'm very much biased against altcoins. :)

Of course, if the holders of a coin are acting against other peoples interest there is good reason for these people to use an altcoin and try to devaluate the other coin. (Funny enough, that people take advise on how to "scale bitcoin" from people heavily invested in litecoin etc..)

Cryptocurrencies give people the chance to participate in a free market of currencies. That is new and great.
 

Zangelbert Bingledack

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2015
1,485
5,585
Quantifying the deadweight loss puts meat on the point I have been raising for many months, that it is still too early to expect market forces to pry the Core out of Bitcoin. And as @Roger_Murdock said in fact we should on the contrary be impressed by how much has already been accomplished with so little deadweight loss.

Our discussions here have made a great difference I think. Not that a fork wouldn't make more a difference, but then discussions here have laid the intellectual groundwork for such a fork, which many of us have propagated through other channels.

Here's how I see this actually playing out:

- Deadweight loss builds, including some forward-looking perception of loss (Fidelity Effect).

- Forks are tried at various stages, first getting little traction (XT; no deadweight loss yet, all anticipatory via Fidelity Effect), then getting substantial but perhaps insufficient traction (Classic; tiny but definite deadweight loss, greater anticipatory loss), and finally gaining sufficient and therefore soon overwhelming traction.

A spinoff is costless but will be ignored if too early. Whether it is better than a Classic-type fork attempt I can't say. They may be roughly equivalent in effect, because neither do much without majority uptake and both succeed if they have majority uptake (assuming 51% is enough to convince 75% to go along, which I think it is). However the spinoff method might be preferred because allows Core diehards to play in their own pool if they wish while the rest of the economy leaves them behind. (This dynamic doesn't work in reverse, because pressure to fork away from Core due to deadweight loss only *builds*, unless of course Core does somehow manage to come through with satisfactory solutions in time to stem the deadweight loss. We get to keep swinging until we hit a homerun, with circumstances getting better and better; meanwhile Blockstream must go all-in on one shot.)
 

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,995
See? Miners are trying to rely on a halving dependent price increase to justify wild valuations and an unsustainable unreliable business model.. I've been warning @SysMan @Jihan @excelon about this;

But the ASX rejected the findings and said if the company wished to continue trying to list it would have to reopen its offer and raise additional funds to "an amount sufficient to deliver it adequate working capital to carry out its stated objectives and to have a sustainable business model
."

http://m.smh.com.au/business/banking-and-finance/asx-nixes-bitcoin-groups-sharemarket-float-over-capital-concerns-20160308-gne3c7.html
 
Last edited:

steffen

Active Member
Nov 22, 2015
118
163
What is the benefit of allowing the "diff blocks" to remove transactions?
@Peter R, I found this quote in the bitcoin9000 paper:
Nodes normally share roughly the same set of transactions in-between blocks, but cannot
effectively synchronize on that set before the next block is found.
Does that make sense to you? How will a miner which lacks a transaction in someone else’s weak block get that transaction? Is the full content of the transaction available in the weak block? If yes, then it can be copied from the weak block to the miner's own mempool. If no, where should the mining node request the transaction from?
 

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,995
Without a significant price spike come July (likely) at least half of all miners could be wiped out. Odds are they will be the larger miners who tend to be the most leveraged.
[doublepost=1457519755][/doublepost]And forget any wild and crazy Luke inspired and his minions centrally planned interventions as I know they read this thread.

They won't work and you will make it much worse. Let them die.
 

steffen

Active Member
Nov 22, 2015
118
163
Regarding DOS attacks using DNS amplification

The core of the problem has nothing to do with the bitcoin client. The problem lies with how DNS works so the proper solution must be to create a replacement for the DNS system. That DNS replacement system should
1. not allow spoofing of ip addresses which could be accomplished by only using TCP (not UDP) and/or
2. never allow "large" responses to "small" requests unless the true recipient has somehow agreed

The DNS replacement should use a port different than port 53. This will allow a migration path from the present system since ISP's can then begin offering DOS-hardened internet connections which in this case means an internet connection for which the ISP immediately drops all traditional DNS traffic arriving from the internet with a destination behind the DOS-hardened internet connection. That way the slim internet connection is not flooded.

Such a system could in the beginning be a premium product for users who want extra DOS protection. It could eventually become a mainstream product because honest people (the majority) do not want to encourage DOS attacks. The spreading of such a system would also be a benefit to ISP's because making DOS attacks harder would make them less common.

Any one here who knows if such a system exists or who might be working on creating it?
 

satoshis_sockpuppet

Active Member
Feb 22, 2016
776
3,312
@cypherdoc
I think it's funny that the "halving price rise" could have very well been a gold mine for the bitcoin miners, if they adapted XT or Classic. But b/c they are stupid cowards the might very well be mining a loss by then. Apart from that, it is scary to see, on which premises some of these companies operate....

A spinoff is costless but will be ignored if too early. Whether it is better than a Classic-type fork attempt I can't say. They may be roughly equivalent in effect, because neither do much without majority uptake and both succeed if they have majority uptake (assuming 51% is enough to convince 75% to go along, which I think it is).
You are right with the first point, but I think we are at least very close to a point where a spinoff wouldn't be ignored. And I wonder if some company like Coinbase would started trading a spinoff coin. They would lose nothing by doing so, but it would help them to get a better bargaining position in the blocksize battle.
It isn't better or worse than the Classic type fork. It's just a question of available options. If 51 % of miners are evil or stupid, there isn't much you can do than just fork away. Another option would be to buy enough hash power to change the course but that isn't realistic any more at the moment.
If we have a huge drop in difficulty after the halving and cheap mining hardware on the market it would be a chance for companies like Coinbase to get into mining...
 

theZerg

Moderator
Staff member
Aug 28, 2015
1,012
2,327

sgbett

Active Member
Aug 25, 2015
216
786
UK
My continuing adventures to spread the facts and cut through the BS

Key points

- the the transaction throughput problem is not in and of itself the issue, its an artefact of not removing the temporary DOS fix of blocksize limit in time

- Segwit as a solution to to the transaction throughput problem infers that artificially limiting throughput is the intended operating mode of the network.

- Segwit as an engineering solution to transaction throughput is objectively bad because it directly addresses an unrelated issue and only indirectly address the issue.

[doublepost=1457536668][/doublepost]My first shadowban! <3
[doublepost=1457536703][/doublepost]Good thing I composed the text elsewhere:

As I recall there is a study that was done on children to ascertain cognitive development. The study found there is strong correlation between age and ability to choose deferred gratification.

In a simple situation such as $50 now vs $100 tomorrow then in the absence of external factors the rational choice is easy. So I am surprised that you said "most people take the $50" because I don see haw that can be explained by impulsivity alone. I would question whether in fact it was more to do with the belief that they would actually get the $100 tomorrow.

As the complexity of the scenario increases the number of unknown variables ensures that it is almost impossible to objectively dictate the most rational course of action.

In the face of unknown variables the most rational course of action is actually to base a decision on known facts. Unknown information can be considered but has to be weighed differently.

A 2MB increase would allow for a 100% increase in throughput from the current situation, and as you point out thats 300k more than segwit. I think thats a red herring though. 1.7 or 2MB doesn't matter ( the 300k difference is incidental). What is important is that the network was not designed to be constrained by an artificial limit. Any such limit was in fact itself the *unnecessary kludge*. A temporary fix put in place to work around a situation. I refuse to say that it is being used as a political spear because that cannot be factually established.

The transaction throughput problem only exists if you think that the limit was intended to limit transactions. There is wide discussion on this topic which I am sure you are aware of some parts of the discussion can be considered factual. Though I apprecaite you might disgree.

The 1MB limit was a temporary fix to limit DOS attacks. It was never intended to limit traffic and so the current *transaction throughput* problem has arisen because the limit has not been removed in time for growth to continue uninterrupted. The solution is to remove the limit.

Before doing this we have to be sure that the reasons why the limit existed have been addressed. The stated reasons have been studied, and mitigated. The system should be allowed to continue growing as it has, unencumbered until such time as there is strong evidence that it cannot. That was how it was designed to operate. Without central control, with absolute reliance on natural market forces to keep all players in check.

Segwit as a solution to the *transaction throughput* problem relies on the premise that transaction throughput is artificially limited. More specifically that this is the intentional operating mode of the system. Something that is in no way reflected in the whitepaper or the majority of the historical discussion.

It is true now that there are some members of the core team that do believe this should be the case. Whilst they are entitled to their opinion I respectfully disagree with them. Circumstance are such that these people do have significant power over bitcoin as a whole. This power is a weak point in bitcoin right now imho. Spontaneous "reorg" of development to me would be a massive breakthrough in terms of the ecosystem demonstrating resilience to centralisation in any form. I am not "anti-core" ("core" is huge how could you be anti all of them?). I am pro choice and I think right now the gears of consensus are stuck, I think once they are unstuck the bitcoin machine will be unstoppable.

So, to me it looks like Segwit is being sold as a solution to a transaction throughput problem that is actively being curated, through the out-and-out refusal to simply remove the 1MB temporary fix. (Replace it with 2MB if it makes people feel safe, but remember thats just as awkward a kludge!)

Remove the limit the problem goes away. When such a simple solution exists to a problem, it is natural to question why the problem is not being addressed.

Selling segwit as an upgrade to transaction throughput seems disingenuous. What segwit appears to do is seperate signature data from transaction data and then price the two things differently. This does not appear to be directly connected to the issue of transaction throughput. If segwit split transaction data and signature data and did nothing else then you could say it did so for the reason of fitting more transactions in a block, but it doesn't do that - why? Why does it price these two things differently?

I have heard "Cheaper Fees!" Who doeasnt want cheaper fees right? It sounds like a sales pitch though because its not cheaper fees its differently calculated fees. In any case Cheaper Fees contradicts the notion of a fee market, which is one of the justifications not to raise the block limit!? This doeasnt make sense to me so again I question why?

Surely the protocol should be agnostic in these matters and leave fee discovery to miners. How doeas pricing transaction data/witness data *automatically* lead to cheaper fees. The cost per byte of the in block data will just rise to the new equilibrium.

Then there is the amorphous "lays the groundwork for even greater improvements". I assume this is eextending the scripting language. The "benefit" here is that you can softfork everything. Why would you want that? Hardorks and consensus are central to the incentive mechanism that keeps participants honest?

Then there is malleability. Who can argue with that! We all remeber big bad scary MtGox right?

So what we have is an (IP?)Bill being pushed through parliament to feed the starving children of Africa (transaction throughput) because terrorists (malleability). Attached to it is a there is this subclause that the food crates can also carry other stuff that isnt food and we wont charge for that so its a cheaper way to send stuff to africa(actual segwit purpose). Then in the small print on the back page in a footnote it says we have the right to retrospectively use this legislation to automatucally bring in any other legislation we choose without having to go through parliamentary process (other improvements!).

OK the above paragraph is a satrical commentary and not to be taken seriously. It illustrates how the peons on the ground feel though. We want or $50 because it feels like the $100 that is being offered tomorrow isnt tomorrow its some unspecified date in the future, and actually between now and then its unclear what $100 will actually buy you, and also you need to sign this other agreement here....

In that situation taking the $50 now is not impulsive, its the most rational decision given the currently available information.

I am not arguing that segwit has no merit. I'm saying lets cross that bridge next, and fix the glaringly obvious issue that right now there is a barrier to natural growth in place that *will* be hit.

Remove the limit. http://www.bitcoinunlimited.info/1txn
[doublepost=1457536851][/doublepost]seems to be the URL that got it nuked
 

Richy_T

Well-Known Member
Dec 27, 2015
1,085
2,741
If there is going to be a full-fork, I would like to see it before, or perhaps at segwit activation. Because as soon as a segwit block is mined, any fork, even if it rejects segwit would have to carry around the code to validate that block.
 

Inca

Moderator
Staff member
Aug 28, 2015
517
1,679
Too much logic sgbett :)

I like the Upton Sinclair quote which applies perfectly when debating these small block advocates:

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it."
 

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,995
My continuing adventures to spread the facts and cut through the BS

Key points

- the the transaction throughput problem is not in and of itself the issue, its an artefact of not removing the temporary DOS fix of blocksize limit in time

- Segwit as a solution to to the transaction throughput problem infers that artificially limiting throughput is the intended operating mode of the network.

- Segwit as an engineering solution to transaction throughput is objectively bad because it directly addresses an unrelated issue and only indirectly address the issue.

[doublepost=1457536668][/doublepost]My first shadowban! <3
[doublepost=1457536703][/doublepost]Good thing I composed the text elsewhere:

As I recall there is a study that was done on children to ascertain cognitive development. The study found there is strong correlation between age and ability to choose deferred gratification.

In a simple situation such as $50 now vs $100 tomorrow then in the absence of external factors the rational choice is easy. So I am surprised that you said "most people take the $50" because I don see haw that can be explained by impulsivity alone. I would question whether in fact it was more to do with the belief that they would actually get the $100 tomorrow.

As the complexity of the scenario increases the number of unknown variables ensures that it is almost impossible to objectively dictate the most rational course of action.

In the face of unknown variables the most rational course of action is actually to base a decision on known facts. Unknown information can be considered but has to be weighed differently.

A 2MB increase would allow for a 100% increase in throughput from the current situation, and as you point out thats 300k more than segwit. I think thats a red herring though. 1.7 or 2MB doesn't matter ( the 300k difference is incidental). What is important is that the network was not designed to be constrained by an artificial limit. Any such limit was in fact itself the *unnecessary kludge*. A temporary fix put in place to work around a situation. I refuse to say that it is being used as a political spear because that cannot be factually established.

The transaction throughput problem only exists if you think that the limit was intended to limit transactions. There is wide discussion on this topic which I am sure you are aware of some parts of the discussion can be considered factual. Though I apprecaite you might disgree.

The 1MB limit was a temporary fix to limit DOS attacks. It was never intended to limit traffic and so the current *transaction throughput* problem has arisen because the limit has not been removed in time for growth to continue uninterrupted. The solution is to remove the limit.

Before doing this we have to be sure that the reasons why the limit existed have been addressed. The stated reasons have been studied, and mitigated. The system should be allowed to continue growing as it has, unencumbered until such time as there is strong evidence that it cannot. That was how it was designed to operate. Without central control, with absolute reliance on natural market forces to keep all players in check.

Segwit as a solution to the *transaction throughput* problem relies on the premise that transaction throughput is artificially limited. More specifically that this is the intentional operating mode of the system. Something that is in no way reflected in the whitepaper or the majority of the historical discussion.

It is true now that there are some members of the core team that do believe this should be the case. Whilst they are entitled to their opinion I respectfully disagree with them. Circumstance are such that these people do have significant power over bitcoin as a whole. This power is a weak point in bitcoin right now imho. Spontaneous "reorg" of development to me would be a massive breakthrough in terms of the ecosystem demonstrating resilience to centralisation in any form. I am not "anti-core" ("core" is huge how could you be anti all of them?). I am pro choice and I think right now the gears of consensus are stuck, I think once they are unstuck the bitcoin machine will be unstoppable.

So, to me it looks like Segwit is being sold as a solution to a transaction throughput problem that is actively being curated, through the out-and-out refusal to simply remove the 1MB temporary fix. (Replace it with 2MB if it makes people feel safe, but remember thats just as awkward a kludge!)

Remove the limit the problem goes away. When such a simple solution exists to a problem, it is natural to question why the problem is not being addressed.

Selling segwit as an upgrade to transaction throughput seems disingenuous. What segwit appears to do is seperate signature data from transaction data and then price the two things differently. This does not appear to be directly connected to the issue of transaction throughput. If segwit split transaction data and signature data and did nothing else then you could say it did so for the reason of fitting more transactions in a block, but it doesn't do that - why? Why does it price these two things differently?

I have heard "Cheaper Fees!" Who doeasnt want cheaper fees right? It sounds like a sales pitch though because its not cheaper fees its differently calculated fees. In any case Cheaper Fees contradicts the notion of a fee market, which is one of the justifications not to raise the block limit!? This doeasnt make sense to me so again I question why?

Surely the protocol should be agnostic in these matters and leave fee discovery to miners. How doeas pricing transaction data/witness data *automatically* lead to cheaper fees. The cost per byte of the in block data will just rise to the new equilibrium.

Then there is the amorphous "lays the groundwork for even greater improvements". I assume this is eextending the scripting language. The "benefit" here is that you can softfork everything. Why would you want that? Hardorks and consensus are central to the incentive mechanism that keeps participants honest?

Then there is malleability. Who can argue with that! We all remeber big bad scary MtGox right?

So what we have is an (IP?)Bill being pushed through parliament to feed the starving children of Africa (transaction throughput) because terrorists (malleability). Attached to it is a there is this subclause that the food crates can also carry other stuff that isnt food and we wont charge for that so its a cheaper way to send stuff to africa(actual segwit purpose). Then in the small print on the back page in a footnote it says we have the right to retrospectively use this legislation to automatucally bring in any other legislation we choose without having to go through parliamentary process (other improvements!).

OK the above paragraph is a satrical commentary and not to be taken seriously. It illustrates how the peons on the ground feel though. We want or $50 because it feels like the $100 that is being offered tomorrow isnt tomorrow its some unspecified date in the future, and actually between now and then its unclear what $100 will actually buy you, and also you need to sign this other agreement here....

In that situation taking the $50 now is not impulsive, its the most rational decision given the currently available information.

I am not arguing that segwit has no merit. I'm saying lets cross that bridge next, and fix the glaringly obvious issue that right now there is a barrier to natural growth in place that *will* be hit.

Remove the limit. http://www.bitcoinunlimited.info/1txn
[doublepost=1457536851][/doublepost]seems to be the URL that got it nuked
Great post. And they banned you for that? BashCo back to his old tricks. Shameful.