Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

bluemoon

Active Member
Jan 15, 2016
215
966
ForkiusMaximus is of course diametrically opposed to Strongius Consensius, but now he understands the internal logic of the worldview, how and why it holds together and mutually reinforces. His priors for "bad faith" and deliberate chicanery on the part of Core/BS/Theymos are now lower.
Thank you @Zangelbert Bingledack, that's a remarkable post which goes some way to helping understand what is going on! I still need to re-read it a few times.

Maybe I lost patience with @jonny1000 a little too soon, but it was very hard to understand why he did not address himself to significant considerations elaborated on our side and just kept reiterating the same points of his own as if they explained everything. The most generous explanation seemed to be perversity on his part, seemingly impervious to logic and with little appreciation of the dynamic nature of the system.

I think what worries me most now is how difficult it will be ever to bridge this gulf. It seems far worse than the political divisions we see in national politics.

It is as if we are two alien cultures with no common language, looking past each other unseeing and virtually deaf, relying on cultivating the same field for food.

I guess both groups could rub along together with a mature coin already successful and unchallenged, but that is not the position. Rather it is going to be the harsh process of market selection which decides between two strongly dissenting parties. It could be bloody.

@jonny1000 may find this hard to believe, but I do appreciate his perseverence in these discussions, though clearly there was no meeting of minds.
 

cliff

Active Member
Dec 15, 2015
345
854
@Richy_T Correct. Consensus is also like water in an ocean or a river - it is hard to hold on to and control. It can only be displaced; it has ebbs and flows; over time, it can cut through rock. The current stalemate results, in part, from a mistaken assumption that only folks with particular label decide and therefore control consensus.

#######

@cypherdoc - RE "i would also disagree that Kore and @jonny1000 are the economic majority as they claim."

Totally agree. I also think the 95% activation trigger suggestion from Jonny is very dangerous. We know several BSers (pun intended) are miners and are close to some miners (GM recently said he was proud to have been a Spondoolies customer in response to their closing shop notice). 5%+ of the hash rate might be quite easy for BS to get, especially if money is on hand. From there, small blockers could easily say "don't blame us, the activation threshold is not our doing; the consensus just doesn't support a Classic-style HF." It is a clever ploy.

#######

@jonny1000 - No offense intended. I think you should stick around, the discussion is productive even if there is no agreement. How about this: when cypherdoc says you're no longer trolling, I'll retract my statement from yesterday? Question: maybe i've missed your bio somewhere, but did you say you have had direct communications Gavin on the matters being discussed here?
 

Mengerian

Moderator
Staff member
Aug 29, 2015
536
2,597
  • It seems many of us went through this kind of process in our head, we all built layers of assumptions on top of assumptions we made.
  • Some of us clearly had made many different assumptions in around 2011 and have then been layering ideas on top of those. This has created a large divide.
Yes, we build our cognitive framework on layers of prior assumptions. But it is a good idea to occasionally re-evaluate those prior assumptions and be open to revising them as we gain new information and insights. If not, small nuance-level mistakes in foundational understanding risk getting magnified as an intellectual framework is built on this faulty foundation.
Let me try to explain again. When Bitcoin came out I thought it was an interesting and unique concept, precisely because I thought you required strong consensus in order to force changes on the network which effect a minority. This meant this new type of money protected minority rights in a way they were not protected with traditional money like USD. If Bitcoin turns out not to have this characteristic, then in my view, it is not sufficiency different from the USD to be interesting, in my mind the value of bitcoin in that scenario should fall to zero.
I had always assumed that if anyone does try to change the rules, without strong consensus, then many participants would rally behind the existing rules to defend the system. I have built new ideas on top of this assumption. If this assumption no longer holds I am simply not interested in Bitcoin.
Then why not test your hypothesis? See if a minority can force through a change without strong consensus. Let the hard fork attempt go ahead and observe what happens. Then if Bitcoin is destroyed you will know that it can't work and you can stop wasting your time on it.
@jonny1000
To me it looks like those of us hanging out here have nothing more to learn from you. Please find something else to do.
I find value in his presence.

I have no expectation of influencing @jonny1000's ideas. My primary goal in responding to his argument is to help me refine my own thoughts. I also find it interesting to read how others respond to him. His strange (to me) understanding of how Bitcoin works helps me think about some nuances in my own theoretical framework and add to my confidence that it is built on a solid foundation.
 

Peter R

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
1,398
5,595
Regarding the activation threshold of 75%, since we're now interpreting the block's version number as a bit field, miners can vote for several proposals at the same time. We could have:

BIT27: 2MB HF at 67%
BIT28: 2MB HF at 75% <--- Current bit used for BIP109
BIT29: 2MB HF at 95%
...

If I were a miner I would set all of the bits (my view is that PoW creates strong consensus), but other miners might only set BIT29 if they adhere to @jonny1000's philosophy (95% threshold for activation).
 

AdrianX

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
2,097
5,797
bitco.in
I'm talking to myself but honestly as soon as 51% of miners commit to mining bigger blocks well reach 100% consensus very fast screw that 95% fantacy.

That 25% oposition @jonny1000 keeps refering too is opposed to what exactly? Bigger Blocks (I doubt it!) in his words the 1MB blocks forever are a minority less than 5% so technically there is no opposition he just selling us on a compromise for a new stalling commitment.

What's more pertinent than the 95% consensus he seeks is why would someone be opposed? The vast majority of those who control wealth are opposed to Bitcoin precisely because they have to buy in to a limited supply and it makes bitcoin the wealth redistribution virus.

Honestly if 100% of those invested in bitcoin believed in Hard Money, we'd be less than 1% if any significant portion of any economy that wanted to moved into Bitcoin.

What protects the integrity of Bitcoin is the rules are voluntary and you have to accept them when you invest, the result is once you've invested you're incentives are aligned with preserving the rules in bitcoin.

The one exception is Block Limit, that limits Money Velocity and thus the maximum value that can be represented by the BlockChain.

Now Blockstream have consistently tried to introduced (and are still trying) new rules are appealing to the majority of TPTB who benefit from the Keynesian inflation economy.

They are attempting to give them an onramp that allows them to invest with a set of custom rules that will alow them to profit from there investment the result is these new rules diminish the Bitcoin network over time and the irony is if they come in to bitcoin and don't change their beliefs, we the majority invested in bitcoin today will become the minority.

The first example of Blockstream's perverted attempt to undermine Bitcoin was SideChain, and now the Lightning Network. It is intended to move the revenue from transaction fees that should be paid to miners for securing the network, to those Lightening Hubs that are well financed thus giving them the fee revenue at the expense of the miners and security.

The sad thing is there are no valid justifications to limit transaction volume on the blockchain, there are just risks in doing so or not doing so, and they are all insignificant when you access them in relation to what will happen if the block limit is not moved.
 

cliff

Active Member
Dec 15, 2015
345
854
@AdrianX - "The sad thing is there are no valid justifications to limit transaction volume on the blockchain."

If companyX controls sidechains and the lightening hubs, or just the service set-up, they've got the ultimate the honeypot, backdoor-placement opportunity, and/or unlimited ability to define the rules of use. All valid justifications logically, they're just antithetical to what lots of people are doing here (trying to bypass legacy systems, barriers to entry, and unnecessary middlefolk)
 

Richy_T

Well-Known Member
Dec 27, 2015
1,085
2,741
It is as if we are two alien cultures with no common language, looking past each other unseeing and virtually deaf, relying on cultivating the same field for food.
I feel like the small blockists have got themselves into a little bubble universe of circular logic. "We can't agree to change the block size because we don't agree to change the block size".
 
Last edited:

Melbustus

Active Member
Aug 28, 2015
237
884
...
I think what worries me most now is how difficult it will be ever to bridge this gulf. It seems far worse than the political divisions we see in national politics.

It is as if we are two alien cultures with no common language, looking past each other unseeing and virtually deaf, relying on cultivating the same field for food.
...
I more or less agree with this. Unfortunately there really isn't a good option. If you believe that the value of a network follows Metcalfe's law (or the n(log(n)) version), then splitting will non-linearly decrease the value of both sides. But the alternative is to watch Core (supported by a set of accident-of-history unsophisticated miners) et al squander what could be several orders of magnitude of eventual Bitcoin market-cap appreciation.
 

AdrianX

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
2,097
5,797
bitco.in
@AdrianX - "The sad thing is there are no valid justifications to limit transaction volume on the blockchain."

If companyX controls sidechains and the lightening hubs, or just the service set-up, they've got the ultimate the honeypot, backdoor-placement opportunity, and/or unlimited ability to define the rules of use. All valid justifications logically, they're just antithetical to what lots of people are doing here (trying to bypass legacy systems, barriers to entry, and unnecessary middlefolk)
Maybe the reasonable people in the @jonny1000 camp will see it before it's too late. I'm not actually opposed to those layer 2 solutions, I'm just opposed to changing the rules in bitcoin to make them more viable, they have to be voluntary and have no effect on blockchain transactions.
 

Richy_T

Well-Known Member
Dec 27, 2015
1,085
2,741
I more or less agree with this. Unfortunately there really isn't a good option. If you believe that the value of a network follows Metcalfe's law (or the n(log(n)) version), then splitting will non-linearly decrease the value of both sides. But the alternative is to watch Core (supported by a set of accident-of-history unsophisticated miners) et al squander what could be several orders of magnitude of eventual Bitcoin market-cap appreciation.
However, this only really applies if you believe that both have equal value and one won't ultimately leave the other behind.
 

Zarathustra

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
1,439
3,797
Note: I believe he would agree with that and is also frustrated with Core (though I assume that is somewhat modulated by the Strongius Consensius considerations above).
[doublepost=1464101352][/doublepost]

I'm sure some would like you to leave (you had to expect this), but I'd really prefer you stay or drop by again sometimes. The forum as it stands is dangerously one-sided. Dangerous not because we are wrong, but because even though we are largely right we can miss nuance, at least the nuance of what other people are failing to understand about our points. At these levels of rarification, any exposure even to a low-quality contrasting view is helpful, and yours was not low quality - not saying it's right or that you argued it perfectly, but better than most would.
We could start a poll whether he should leave or not. Jonny1000 could leave if there is 'strong consensus' that he schould.;) I'll vote for him to stay, despite I had some problems with his opinions.
 
Last edited:

Peter R

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
1,398
5,595
I'm back to thinking that non-mining nodes should not be running Classic. Non-mining nodes should increase their block size limits today (e.g., by running Unlimited), thereby giving permission to the miners to produce larger blocks in the future.

Waiting for the miners to activate a block size limit increase for the non-mining nodes is putting the cart before the horse. We are trying to get the miners to lead (be the horse), whereas in reality they should follow (they are the cart). What we need is for businesses like Coinbase, Xapo, Bitpay, Blockchain.info to say "our nodes accept blocks up to 8MB (or whatever) today!"

Please excuse the repetition, but I believe this animation is quite accurate:



People who claim that hard forks are more difficult than soft forks because "everyone needs to upgrade at the same time," do not understand that a hard fork is simply a soft fork in reverse. For a soft-forking change, nodes can upgrade asynchronously after the miners start enforcing a new rule. For a hard-forking change, nodes can upgrade asynchronously before the miners stop enforcing an old rule.



If we want the miners to produce bigger blocks, we need to show them that we are willing to accept bigger blocks.

Run Bitcoin Unlimited today!

(Or patch your favourite client and write your node's block size limit in the user-agent string as per BUIP005).
 

AdrianX

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
2,097
5,797
bitco.in
We could start a poll if he should leave. Jonny1000 could leave if there is 'strong consensus' that he schould.;) I'll vote for him to stay, despite I had some problems with his opinions.
The consensus wouldn't matter because it's an uncensored forum, his participation is 100% voluntary. It would be sad to see that he's choosing to adhere to one authority and forgo his freedom to participate and learn.
 

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,994
poor Spamson. he's upset:

 
  • Like
Reactions: majamalu and Norway