Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

albin

Active Member
Nov 8, 2015
931
4,008
They're grasping at straws at this point, because there really isn't any non-disingenuous argument against an adaptive scheme. They can still lobby miners with their patronizing slides all they want, it just removes the dev lever of power via inertia/FUD. The opposition to Toomim simply going around polling miners and arriving at the most non-controversial possible consensus of 2 MB really tells you how weird this whole thing has gotten.
 

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,995
well, this is good news; i think:

 

rocks

Active Member
Sep 24, 2015
586
2,284
What I don't understand is, changing 1 to 2 and double the block size limit is not able to reach consensus after 18 months, while changing thousands of lines and totally change the bitcoin architecture is able to reach consensus in 3 months? There must be something very wrong here, it seems you only need one group of people agree to a solution then it suddenly becomes a consensus
This type of control isn't necessarily a bad thing if those in control have the right vision and competency to fulfill that vision. This is why Mike Hearn made the point that open source software functions best under the guidance of a soft dictator, i.e. someone who sets the direction and keeps a project on track towards that vision.

The problem with Bitcoin is the small number of people who took over control (by driving everyone else out) have a crappy vision, and on top of that are unable to even execute on that vision. LN is a mess that still doesn't work and I still have yet to see one real use case that LN solves better than alternatives.

Compare this to Ethereum, which has a leader with a clear vision and how to execute that vision. I still own zero ETH but am starting to question why after reading about projects such as Arcade City (Ethereum based Uber replacement). These are clear use cases I can understand and if it works could drive massive adoption, not just for the ride sharing DAC but for the 100s of other DACs that are possible as well.
http://reason.com/blog/2016/03/15/can-the-blockchain-kill-uber-free-state

Bitcoin is in the hands of Blockstream devs who have at best a crappy vision they can't execute on, miners who have zero vision and just expect "the price to go up", and users who mostly just accept the status quo.
 

Zarathustra

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
1,439
3,797
@Peter R Thank you! :)

Its crazy sometimes when I start posting on Bitcointalk I just can not get myself to stop, will refrain from posting there for a while again after this round, takes up to much of my time. The small blockists are also very disrespectful and rude, its much nicer in here.

I will focus my energies more on writing for Satoshi's Bitcoin and the project that is being in run in parallel to it. When they tell me to fork off, they should be careful of what they wish for, it makes me feel like doing exactly that.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1330553.msg14264737#msg14264737
That's a censored thread opened by a censoring psychopath. That's the city of the soul mates of the thermos. There is no reason to post on playgrounds where such people hang around.

O Veritas S., there is the great city: there hast thou nothing to seek and everything to lose.

Why wouldst thou wade through this mire? Have pity upon thy foot! Spit rather on the gate of the city, and--turn back!

There is the hell for anchorites' thoughts: there are great thoughts seethed alive and boiled small.

There do all great sentiments decay: there may only rattle-boned sensations rattle!

Smellest thou not already the shambles and cookshops of the spirit? Steameth not this city with the fumes of slaughtered spirit?

Seest thou not the souls hanging like limp dirty rags?--And they make threads also out of these rags!

By all that is luminous and strong and good in thee, O Veritas Saperes! Spit on this city of shopmen and return back!

There floweth all blood putridly and tepidly and frothily through all veins: spit on the great city, which is the great slum where all the scum frotheth together!

Spit on the city of compressed souls and slender breasts, of pointed eyes and sticky fingers--

--On the city of the obtrusive, the brazen-faced, the pen-demagogues and tongue-demagogues, the overheated ambitious:--

Where everything maimed, ill-famed, lustful, untrustful, over-mellow, sickly-yellow and seditious, festereth pernicious:--

--Spit on the great city and turn back!--
 
Last edited:

VeritasSapere

Active Member
Nov 16, 2015
511
1,266
This clip reminded me of Bitcoin regarding Core and their conception of design and consensus.


"Consensus thinking is poison to design, all you do is drive towards mediocrity. If you simply take everyone's input, average it out, its not great at anything. So for me I would rather move hard and strong in a bold direction, a novel direction, take the chance of a complete failure and a disaster, then do something that is kind of oke. The world does not need more stuff that is kind of oke"
 
Last edited:

Peter R

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
1,398
5,595
Regarding the slush article, he got the part about Bitcoin Unlimited wrong (thinking that blocks above the user-defined acceptance limit would be invisible to a node and potentially cause a network split). I was chatting briefly with James Hilliard in Classic Slack and he made the same mistake too. A lot of people still mis-understand Bitcoin Unlimited's solution to the block size limit problem.
 

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,995
i don't quite get those stats since Bitnodes said they were filtering out ipv6 addresses (which caused the huge drop in Classic nodes last week) yet i still see them.
[doublepost=1458668053][/doublepost]
Regarding the slush article, he got the part about Bitcoin Unlimited wrong (thinking that blocks above the user-defined acceptance limit would be invisible to a node and potentially cause a network split). I was chatting briefly with James Hilliard in Classic Slack and he made the same mistake too. A lot of people still mis-understand Bitcoin Unlimited's solution to the block size limit problem.
yeah, i noticed that too. did you correct him?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Norway and majamalu

AdrianX

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
2,097
5,797
bitco.in
An interesting survey result.
https://news.bitcoin.com/survey-reveals-divide-bitcoin-subreddits/

the link was referenced from reddit. I didn't read the questionnaire but this comment struck me as hilarious.


I don't agree with his framing of centralization as a technical byproduct of bigger blocks. If centralization is a measure of full node count SegWits is going to cause more centralization.

In reality it's just the centralized control of money that's important.

The results confirm my observations and definitely splits between those who work with money (entrepreneurs) and those who work with code (programmers)
.
 
Last edited:

Peter R

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
1,398
5,595
yeah, i noticed that too. did you correct him?
Ah! here why I could not get what he was saying. Can you please comment on the post correcting him?
Done (left a Medium comment). Incidentally, after I spent the time to write my response, I noticed that @theZerg had left similar response 3 hours earlier.
 
Last edited:

adamstgbit

Well-Known Member
Mar 13, 2016
1,206
2,650
An interesting survey result.
I don't agree with his framing of centralization as a technical byproduct of bigger blocks. If centralization is a measure of full node count SegWits is going to cause more centralization.
.
why would segwit lead to lower node count Vs 2MB?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AdrianX

AdrianX

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
2,097
5,797
bitco.in
2MB blocks will likely also reduce node count, but it seems like while there is probably an optimum node number relative to network size and most would agree more nodes seems desirable the actual number remains an unproven assumption, to put that in perspective a rational argument can be made for as few as 50 nodes to keep bitcoin decentralized.

The number of nodes is unlikely to be dictated by the size of the blockchain. Full nodes are more likely to be dictated by the number of miners and network participants who are dependant on the security, information and utility a full node can provide.

@adamstgbit

Once deployed, only SegWits enabled nodes will be fully capable nodes, all other nodes will be some type of diminished node. The result will be fewer full nodes.

It's been argued that the increased space demand for nodes will eventually lead to centralisation, Gmaxwell tells us: "Segwit is not about saving space for plain full nodes"

If we are to believe the small block proponents argument that increasing the block size will result in increasing the blockchain size that result in a centralized data center, then Segwit could have same effect given it's not about space saving.

Scaling is not about optimising block space, scaling Bitcoin is about using the most scarce resource optimally. In the case with Bitcoin and implementing SegWits and 2MB blocks, it's using bandwidth effectively provides the biggest scaling returns. SegWits as pointed out is less efficient with bandwidth than 2MB blocks would be.

And when put in context of Gavin's Headers first, BitPay's dynamic / Bitcoins Unlimited consensus block sizes and Xthin, these are far more efficient proposals available for implementation now, and combined they will allow Bitcoin to scale while optimising the scarce resources of bandwidth more efficiently than SegWit.
 
Last edited:

albin

Active Member
Nov 8, 2015
931
4,008
The Brock Pierce interview on Epicenter Bitcoin is really interesting. He's explicitly supporting Core devs finding "consensus", yet his view of how we should proceed is exactly the Classic roadmap.
 

Melbustus

Active Member
Aug 28, 2015
237
884
The Brock Pierce interview on Epicenter Bitcoin is really interesting. He's explicitly supporting Core devs finding "consensus", yet his view of how we should proceed is exactly the Classic roadmap.
Brock very much dislikes Olivier Janssens due to what happened at the Foundation last year. So no surprises that he's not supporting Classic.
 

adamstgbit

Well-Known Member
Mar 13, 2016
1,206
2,650
The Brock Pierce interview on Epicenter Bitcoin is really interesting. He's explicitly supporting Core devs finding "consensus", yet his view of how we should proceed is exactly the Classic roadmap.
I think this is fairly common amongst core supporters.

I explicitly support Core devs

I believe they will raise block limit to 2MB soon.
 

freetrader

Moderator
Staff member
Dec 16, 2015
2,806
6,088
If this paper has been linked to here already, I apologize, if not, it very much looks worth a read:

"Analyzing the Bitcoin Network: The First Four Years" - http://www.mdpi.com/1999-5903/8/1/7/pdf

Choice quote for those who claim increased block size would lead to increased centralization / decrease in full nodes:
The average clustering coefficient decreases with increasing activity in the network. In quarter two and three of 2011 the lowest coefficients were computed, while the user activity surged in that time period. The same effect can be noted for August 2012 and March 2013. Hence, more user activity in the network reduces the global cliquishness in the Bitcoin economy.
Now, increased user activity would normally result in increased block sizes, if the block size were left to grow freely in response. At least, that would seem to make sense if the network is scaled on-chain...