Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

Aquent

Active Member
Aug 19, 2015
252
667
"locked!" --@cypherdoc

Wow, you're right:



Theymos and Blockstream/Core have become like the medieval Catholic church. Science is banned!
When the printing press started the Renaissance and an ongoing golden age of more than 500 years now, as well as the reformation etc, the church tried all they could to stop it. Of course you can't stop what is self evidently good, but you can delay it.

Now, I don't buy into conspiracy theories, even though I can't see how blockstream is to become a one billion dollars company based on their funding of $75 million x10, or why AXA, the insurance giant which stands behind banks as AIG stood behind Lehman, gave them most of the money, especially as they have no product whatever to show even after two years, but I suppose there could be a million reasons and no point speculating in the absence of evidence.

I think Gregory Maxwell and Peter Todd believes blocksize should be kept at 1MB forever, but it is difficult to ignore the parallels. However, unlike the 14 hundreds, time moves faster now and thus ability to delay far shorter. If Peter Smith, Blockchain CEO, is right that segwit won't give a thing until 2018, I can't see how 1MB can hold for more than a few months, but, when a narrative is created to potentially give miners' shortsighted interest cover, such as fees will go up much higher and they will make a lot more money, a potential reason for lack of capacity increase identified all the way back in 2010, it is difficult to predict.

In my view, it is obvious that miners believe in the fee market. As they themself stated, they believe that fees will go up and up and they will make a lot of money.

At the end of the day, the current 1mb is not because of words, but because of action and the only ones who can act in this specific scenario where businesses and users back an increase, are the miners, as far as continuing as we have been for the past seven years is concerned. Their lack of action is probably based on reason, whether factual or faulty, and that reason is probably based on analysis of what will make them most money.

Currently, it is obvious they think the way to make most money is to cap capacity in the hope of fees increasing. Without any scientific undertaking, but simple observation, fees are increasing in bouts as the mempool is cleared during weekends. Price has been increasing considerably bringing in other, unrelated factors, which should be ignored as far as the premise that a fee market would give miners more base revenue is concerned, but, without any scientific undertaking, it is not very clear what we should reasonably expect to happen.

Bitcoin works under the premise that miners are selfish and act in their own selfish interest. We can therefore expect them to take any path that promises them more money, which, as far as narratives go, currently, is 1MB forever as they have themselves stated. If that is faulty or incorrect, it needs to be shown so because if there is anyone to persuade it is the miners, not Greg or Todd or Theymos or anyone else who hold no power or say whatever but empty words and whose mind will probably never change, for some decades anyway and I don't think the miners are persuaded by a constant outpouring of anger or personal attacks etc. That's why Peter_R's science is so refreshing.

Opinions are free, but facts are sacred.
 

Erdogan

Active Member
Aug 30, 2015
476
855
@Erdogan

Since it seems to be the halving wot dun it maybe coins at 1000 would have seen them stagger on?

But I agree, I've often thought the price might well be an order of magnitude higher, or more, if the coin wasn't crippled.
Mining is a business, where the continuous running of the machinery is essential, but it is also a risk business, where the big unknowns are the future bitcoin price, and the competitions hashing power in the future. What should a miner do, if he thinks price could would to 2000 in three months (with some degree of risk), and the other miners think not? Invest, get a good hashrate fraction while the price is high, before the difficulty rises. It is more risky than just holding coins, but could give a higher profit. They overdid it. So what, it could have succeeded. Anyway, creative destruction.
 

Erdogan

Active Member
Aug 30, 2015
476
855
Currently, it is obvious they think the way to make most money is to cap capacity in the hope of fees increasing.
I agree. it's obvious that a fee market exists now. But the dynamics of the fee market will change, as users find the point where the time to be included is sufficient, and the miners find the right balance of what transactions to include. I guess this market discovery will continue, hopefully dividing prices into classes, depending on the actual demand. After all, we have large value transactions and small value transactions, important transactions and some that can wait. As user base expands (I hope and am quite certain of, as bitcoin transactions are directly useful for many, and is also right now useful to a lot of people who have not discovered the system yet), there will be a market pressure towards larger blocks, and suddenly, one beautiful day, not to far in the future, hopefully this summer, the pressure will rupture the boiler, and we have larger blocks. From that day, the market will adjust the blocks to the best size for the users and the miners, unlimited style.
 

bluemoon

Active Member
Jan 15, 2016
215
966
Bitcoin works under the premise that miners are selfish and act in their own selfish interest. We can therefore expect them to take any path that promises them more money, which, as far as narratives go, currently, is 1MB forever as they have themselves stated. If that is faulty or incorrect, it needs to be shown so because if there is anyone to persuade it is the miners, not Greg or Todd or Theymos or anyone else who hold no power or say whatever but empty words and whose mind will probably never change, for some decades anyway and I don't think the miners are persuaded by a constant outpouring of anger or personal attacks etc.
Assuming the miners are expecting more money by keeping 1MB, it remains unclear why exactly.

@Jihan said they'd been told LN would create such demand for transactions that on-chain transaction fees would increase hugely.

Our friend @jonny1000 denies that while also saying the miners were on the verge of adopting Classic prior to the HK non-agreement (see [Note 1] re Peter Todd). If Jonny is to be believed, the principal reason miners stayed with Core was their desire for near unanimity with respect to a hard fork, implying they believe allowing increased on-chain transactions through larger block sizes would pay better than Core's off-chain model.

Has something else been said to the miners, and if so, by whom?

Beyond Jihan's statement on reddit I am not aware the miners have entered into a public discussion of their decision.


[Note 1]:
Seems Core disowns the HK agreement:

[referencing Peter Todd]
edit re increased on-chain transactions through larger block sizes
 
Last edited:

awemany

Well-Known Member
Aug 19, 2015
1,387
5,054
@cypherdoc:

Two things:

a) I might be wrong here, but as far as I understand the issue and reddit comment, MemoryDealers and Anarchystar are not opposed to the pubkey being public, but rather their stashes linked to their persons.

b) I know you don't have a very high opinion on a POS vote on blocksize (my stance is that it should be a last-resort option, with the last-resort rapidly approaching..). However, note how Greg, Luke (he just commented specifically on a pro-POS-vote statement I made yesterday) and so on always evade the argument when I say: "Ok, lets all agree to disagree and somehow solve this issue".

Even if you do not believe in POS, arguing for it seems to trigger quite a bit of uneasiness in them. Greg and Luke always evade that issue with 'but, but, 95% consensus'.

The more I see their replies, the more I think it is a quite effective weapon against their bullshit and something which makes them fearful.

That tells me it is probably a good idea to continue to apply more pressure on this point.

I think if a couple of prominent guys on the Classic/BB side would make such a request, it will make them visibly wavering at least.
 

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,994
Lol, I really stirred up the hornets nest. /u/coinjaf, /u/nullc, /u/Anduckk, & /u/stopthespinoff going absolutely batshit crazy by me challenging /u/nullc on his bitcoinocrazy support.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AdrianX and awemany

Inca

Moderator
Staff member
Aug 28, 2015
517
1,679
Just want to say a big thank you to @Peter Tschipper , @Peter R, @theZerg and @sickpig. Xthin and the way it is being presented to the community will hopefully inspire further performance improvements and draw developers to alternative bitcoin clients in the future.

Who cares if Gregory 'toxic' Maxwell dismisses it out of hand as being less efficient than the centralised relay network and and an old idea. The fact is it is a much needed optimisation for the network in terms of reducing bandwidth for nodes which support it and reducing block propagation latency times right now.

Classic should integrate this so that a clear distinction appears between the two codebases and begins to circumvent the #not_invented_here bullshit emanating from the roadblock that is 'core' bitcoin development presently.
 

awemany

Well-Known Member
Aug 19, 2015
1,387
5,054
Lol, I really stirred up the hornets nest. /u/coinjaf, /u/nullc, /u/Anduckk, & /u/stopthespinoff going absolutely batshit crazy by me challenging /u/nullc on his bitcoinocrazy support.
Exactly what I am noticing, too. Greg likes to parade bitcoinocracy.com around, however try push him for the large-scale, agreed-upon on-chain vote. Try it. He'll evade.

@Inca: On BCT, I saw him being called "a back-belt level troll" by Roger Ver. What a cesspool BCT is, by the way. E.g. Icebreaker is such a toxic person, maybe we should be glad that we're dealing with Greg ...

Oh and maybe the miners would be interested in a widespread POS vote, too. As they seem to not be too keen on deciding for themselves.
 
  • Like
Reactions: majamalu and Inca

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,994
a) I might be wrong here, but as far as I understand the issue and reddit comment, MemoryDealers and Anarchystar are not opposed to the pubkey being public, but rather their stashes linked to their persons.
if that's the case, that doesn't change my opinion on that being unwise or unsafe. here's some references on the subject. it's an unnecessary risk:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1458591.msg14733677#msg14733677
Even if you do not believe in POS, arguing for it seems to trigger quite a bit of uneasiness in them.
arguing with them period makes them uneasy.

the problem i have with POS signing as some form of vote is that i think you misunderstand the practicality of doing this. lets say someone has 10000BTC. they decide to break that up into 50BTC lots for security purposes. those all get stored on a Trezor, or whatever, and stores in in a safety deposit box in Switzerland or some remote place. how's he supposed to be incentivized to vote?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Norway and Peter R

awemany

Well-Known Member
Aug 19, 2015
1,387
5,054
@cypherdoc: I understand that and I see that there will be some amount of unfairness in any such vote. I see it as a last-resort should we (as the Bitcoin whole) not be able to reconcile on blocksize.

I do think Greg actually thrives on arguments where he thinks he can prove the other side wrong. Just look at his recent 30h reddit ego trip.

In any case, I still hope RV or OJ are able or willing to talk some sense into the miners. Jihan seems to indicate that a bit in his post, so maybe something like that actually happened.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cypherdoc

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,994
@awemany

i like the fork futures idea that i think i first came up with (correct me if i'm wrong) and @Zangelbert Bingledack & @ForkiusMaximus have taken to an altogether higher level and detail. that would be a real economic vote based on the market and would directly effect the spot price. the problem with the POS vote is that no one has to deal with the results. Greg would just *shrugs his shoulders* again and ignore it.
 

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,994
now that i think back, the last time /u/nullc went on a rampage like this, it wasn't so long after that he mysteriously disappeared for a month or so, only to be found that he had given up his github commit privileges to remain CTO of Blockstream. maybe a continued assault could result in some more deprecation.
 

cypherdoc

Well-Known Member
Aug 26, 2015
5,257
12,994
One other point in the exposed public key issue hotly contested today. NIST has come out depreciating ECC in a post quantum age. Exposing public keys is irresponsible and unnecessary.
 

jonny1000

Active Member
Nov 11, 2015
380
101
Of course, if 51% disagree with you, they can override that anyway.
It is true that 51% of miners can impose a softfork on the network, yes. This is of course not true with respect to a hardfork. This is not an opinion, this is a fact, it is simply how nodes behave.

It is clear you guys do not want nodes to behave this way with respect to the blocksize, which is an opinion I respect. That is why you have launched BU (which I think is terrible for several partly unrelated reasons).

I know you want to change this, but please stop denying the facts right now, that 1MB is a rule enforced by the nodes. If you want to remove the rule fine, but please stop pretending it doens't exist or wont exist just because 51% of the miners say so.
[doublepost=1465104120,1465103368][/doublepost]
Assuming the miners are expecting more money by keeping 1MB, it remains unclear why exactly.

@Jihan said they'd been told LN would create such demand for transactions that on-chain transaction fees would increase hugely.

Our friend @jonny1000 denies that while also saying the miners were on the verge of adopting Classic prior to the HK non-agreement (see [Note 1] re Peter Todd). If Jonny is to be believed, the principal reason miners stayed with Core was their desire for near unanimity with respect to a hard fork, implying they believe allowing increased on-chain transactions through larger block sizes would pay better than Core's off-chain model.
The principal reason miners decided to back the existing rules, is because at the very least they wanted to give strong consensus a chance. Miners publicly said they wanted a 90% threshold. If you guys first try to change the blocksize with strong consensus and then lose, perhaps they will feel differently.

If you believe me with respect to that, then stop spreading false malicous rumours about Core's plans. Core does not have an "off-chain model". Core is working extremely hard to improve and deliver on-chain scaling and capacity. For example:
  • On chain Scaling - 7x signature verification speed enhancement delivered in 0.12 - Fully delivered and live on the network
  • On chain Scaling - Non linear scaling of sighash operations - delivered
  • On chain Scaling & c2x on chain capacity increase - Segregated witness - delivered
  • c2x on chain capacity increase - Schnorr signatures - in progress
  • c1.4x on chain capacity increase - Aggregated signatures - in progress
  • c2x or more on chain capacity increase - Hardfork to 2MB or more - Waiting for the significant attempts to do this without consensus to cease before moving forward, as this is a hardfork and requires consensus across the entire community and cannot be done during attacks
Please stop spreading false and divisive rumors about what the Core team want. Everybody wants on-chain scaling and capacity improvements. There is just a difference of view about how to do a hardfork, one view is based on free market/economic ideals and the other is based on facts about how nodes actually work in the real world. This is why c88% of node operators support Core, because maybe they actually understand how nodes work. Nodes do not stop enforcing the rules just because 51% of the miners say so.

Mischarecterising the conflict is not helpful. The longer the attack persists the more the economic majority will rally behind the existing rules. Not that this matters, because Core will deliver a c10x on chain capacity increase anyway, without a hardfork.
[doublepost=1465104505][/doublepost]
One other point in the exposed public key issue hotly contested today. NIST has come out depreciating ECC in a post quantum age. Exposing public keys is irresponsible and unnecessary.
Do you know there are over c1.2m bitcoins with the public key exposed? (last I checked)
 
Last edited:

Richy_T

Well-Known Member
Dec 27, 2015
1,085
2,741
It is true that 51% of miners can impose a softfork on the network, yes.
I was very careful not to say "miners". Though that would certainly be a sub-requirement.

Though to be fair, if 51% of miners did decide to go to 2MB blocks, it's not clear what the conditions on the rest of the network would have to be for the fork to be considered a "success". Potentially much less than 51% of the normal nodes might need to use the higher block size if enough significant economic operators chose to work with the 51% (and vice versa).

It seems to me that the increased economic activity on the chain with the bigger blocks would quickly draw economic actors to it.
 
Last edited:

freetrader

Moderator
Staff member
Dec 16, 2015
2,806
6,088
Everyone respected the good work that Core was doing so far until it became clear what was happening.

They did themselves no favor by not distancing themselves from the enormous commercial conflict of interest of their leadership, nevermind sitting down with a >51% mining cartel to hammer out a deal to suppress others (reminiscent of the censorship their supporters like to practice in other spheres).

Besides, who are we kidding. There is no "Core project". There are only Core supporters, acting on their invididual instincts.
Not that this matters, because Core will deliver a c10x on chain capacity increase anyway, without a hardfork.
My take is that by adding tons of complex code, Core is adding a large number of bugs, some of which will (!) slip through testing and could give Bitcoin major headaches. There's simply no way they are doing sufficient testing - this is looking at the existing code and tests - the results of the last few years' work.

Then there's the bewildering complexity of up to 29 soft-forks interacting in future, soft forks which most of the ecosystem has no veto over and which Lombrozo has already said will open the door to undetermined future script changes. Nice strong consensus indeed. Pity it only applies to Core and its cartel buddies, not the rest of Bitcoin users.

All because some egos will do anything to prevent what amounts to the least risky approach to on-chain scaling.

One thing is for sure, before SegWit activates, there'll be a hard fork for people who don't want to be dragged along in this farce. And it's going to be called Bitcoin.
 

jonny1000

Active Member
Nov 11, 2015
380
101
It seems to me that the increased economic activity on the chain with the bigger blocks would quickly draw economic actors to it.
Maybe, I hope you see how a long protracted ware with people taking sides and becoming stubborn reduces the chances of this...