Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[jonny1000]

What do you mean by winning though? This isn't a one-time thing. The smaller hash-rate chain has to keep on winning (against the odds) while the larger hash-rate chain just keeps rolling along until it pulls ahead by a lead which is realistically impossible to defeat.

Well remember each time the 2MB get orphaned they will be less and less likely to try again, as each time they lose money. Also each time this occurs is an opportunity for double spend attacks. This also damages the integrity of the system and is something miners want to avoid.

By the way, now you seem to understand this, do you understand why 51% miners cannot hardfork?

The real question is why do this? Why do the HF in a way where you have a c18% chance of defeat and we have to go through all this maths? We should just make it easy on ourselves and make sure the hardfork is totally victorious.

I am somebody who really cares about the resilience of the network. In 2008 traditional financial systems demonstrated vulnerabilities and weaknesses. Part of the selling point of Bitcoin is being highly robust. For me going through this 18% defeat scenario is too high a price. Therefore I oppose Classic, along with 95% of the miners and 88% of the node operators.

Please put forward a HF to 2MB which allows me to support you.

Now one of the reasons you disagree with this is because you think in the 28 day grace period the miners and community will rally behind Classic. I think this is partly based on bias, you think Classic is such a good idea that the community will support it. Another part of this is I think Classic supporters do not have a sufficiently adversarial mindset, please assume bad case scenarios rather than the scenario you want.
[doublepost=1465180008,1465179394][/doublepost]

It's a marathon, not a sprint

Each part in this process is a double spend opportunity. I am not willing to tolerate that. The switch to 2MB must be final, overwhelming and decisive. If it happens in this non decisive, narrow, marginal victroy way (which in practice just leads to more victories for Core), I will consider the rules as non robust and exit the ecosystem.

 

[Richy_T]

Each time? The *first* 1MB block, even with your numbers (which I doubt) has only a 20% chance of being orphaned. If it isn't, the larger block chain is already pulling ahead. *If* it does manage to orphan that >1MB block, then the next time it happens, there is only a 25% chance of that one being orphaned. You are talking tiny chances of a small amount of the block reward being lost. Then let's put that up against that 75% will get 100% of the reward if when the bigger block chain is successful and the smaller block chain will be left with ashes.

Your double-spend attack scenario would need to be made clear. Any transaction could be confirmed on either chain at any time and some kind of Machiavellian coordination would have to be going on to actually find some way to exploit this in the small timescale in which the larger-blocked chain took to become dominant.

I am not willing to tolerate that.

It's not about you if 75% choose to go that way. You are free to try and make a go of the ever-diminishing small-block chain, of course. If the main bus isn't going your way, you can always ride the short bus.

51% still works FWIW but it has a harder time than 75% in ways that are probably best avoided.

 

[VeritasSapere]

@jonny1000 Think about what you are saying.

I am not willing to tolerate that.

The Bitcoin protocol was founded on principles of volunteerism. Even a small percentage of the hashpower can split Bitcoin, it has already been done here as a test and nobody even noticed. That is a fact of the Bitcoin protocol whether you like it or not. If that undermines your believe in Bitcoin then maybe you should leave because not all of Bitcoins rules are robust, RBF and the blocksize limit might both be examples of this. On the other hand rules such as the supply of Bitcoin I would consider to be extremely robust.

"Consensus" does not mean that everyone has to agree, it means that everyone gets to have exactly the cryptocurrency they choose, this is how we achieve financial freedom. It is a Consensus on tolerance, that is how we achieve freedom.

I see the ability to split the chain, as solving the age old problem of the tyranny of the majority. It is an aspect of the very freedom that Bitcoin represents. Hard forks are one of the mechanisms that serves as a check against the power of any development team. However the incentive to not split the chain over any issue is great, it is better to just all get along. In this case most people do want to increase the blocksize limit, which is why I think that most people would go along with the change at this point if the miners lead the way.

I think part of the problem lies in seeing Core as some sort of authority, even when that goes against the very essence of decentralization. However if you do want to have a cryptocurrency that has robust rules, then you can choose to stay behind when the rest of the world increases the blocksize limit. Splitting the chain, transforming your half of the chain so that it perfectly reflects your values and ideology. It would be your freedom of choice to do so.

 

[Richy_T]

Where is Rocks?

 

[jonny1000]

hat is a fact of the Bitcoin protocol whether you like it or not. If that undermines your believe in Bitcoin then maybe you should leave

Well yes, if I was wrong about Bitcoin and changes can be made to the rules like this I will leave. So far the system is proving resilient enough. Therefore I am reasonably confident about the future.

because not all of Bitcoins rules are robust, RBF and the blocksize limit might both be examples of thi

No RBF is not an example of this. I do not care how changes in RBF policies occur. The fact that you bring RBF up, demonstrates you totally misunderstand my point of view. This just shows the cause of the disagreement is a lack of understanding, rather than anyone acting in bad faith. The need for a resounding victory only applies to the elimination of a consensus rule, which would cause a chain split. Anyone can do whatever they like with respect to RBF. There is no consensus needed for RBF.

In a sense this confusion gives me hope. If there was a group of people censoring comments in forums, calling it dangerous, saying its an attack, saying we need consensus first and arranging meetings to stop it, when all it was was a change in RBF policy or change in the logo of the main client, I would be furious. I would be angry at those people, I would want say they are holding Bitcoin back and crippling Bitcoin. I would want to remove their influence over the system. I would totally agree with you.

However, luckily nobody is advocating that. You have just totally misunderstood the situation. The need for consensus is only on a tiny narrow subset of the things in Bitcoin, because in order for the system to work and for us all to be one one chain, we need to have broad consensus on the rules which determine if the chain is valid. It is as simple as that. Once you realize this distinction, and that it has nothing to do with RBF type stuff, you will realize the system is very flexible and appreciate what the Core team has done.

"Consensus" does not mean that everyone has to agree, it means that everyone gets to have exactly the cryptocurrency they choose, this is how we achieve financial freedom.

Then why do you guys criticize Theymos for saying XT was an altcoin?

 

[VeritasSapere]

@jonny1000 The distinction between "consensus rules" and non "consensus rules" is arbitrary, they are all just rules which can be changed. It is just as meaningless as the distinction is between hard forks and soft forks. If the blocksize limit is changed using a soft fork it does not change the fundamental nature of the rule that is being changed especially in regards to the value proposition of Bitcoin.

Then why do you guys criticize Theymos for saying XT was an altcoin?

Because factually XT is not an altcoin, it functions on the Bitcoin protocol. You might have even made use of an XT node once while using an SPV wallet.

You keep talking about attackers and the need to achieve victory over these attackers attempting to achieve a state where there would be no major disagreement or resistance. The only way that can be achieved is through violence and coercion, that is the way of the old world. Bitcoin follows the way of peace through tolerance and freedom.

 

[jbreher]

Part 3 of 5:

https://medium.com/@peter_r/towards-massive-on-chain-scaling-block-propagation-results-with-xthin-792a752c14c2

Xthin blocks cut through the Great Firewall of China like a hot knife through butter.

I see you plotted outliers in the format I suggested. Thanks for the mention.

I am confused by the statement
"The jump in the curve for Bin 1 near 99% corresponded almost entirely to the very slow blocks received by the Shenzhen node. The elevated number of very slow blocks in Bin 1 explains its large mean value (relative to the other statistics such as the derived mean). To account for this, the tail was adjusted as indicated by the X’s, and the the mean value was corrected."
This reads as if you 'adjusted' part of your data set by removing time from the raw values. Is there reason to believe that what the ShenZhen node saw in its outliers was not a real effect?

 

[jonny1000]

@jonny1000 The distinction between "consensus rules" and non "consensus rules" is arbitrary, they are all just rules which can be changed.

It is not arbitrary. One causes a chain split the other doesn't. If we treat these the same we will not get anywhere. For one set of rules everyone can do there own thing and still be on the same chain and use the same token with the same miners, for the other set of rules if people do their own thing they have a different token with different miners. Do you not see how this is fundamentally different?

For the "non consensus rules", diversity and experiment is great, and we can all still be on the same chain. For "consensus rules", if we are going to change them, or split into two or more, we should be very careful and realize we are not going to have one Bitcoin anymore.

 

[AdrianX]

How many times do I need to repeat, RBF has nothing to do with the rules for determining if blocks are valid. RBF is just some local mempool policy. RBF is neither a hardfrok or a softfork.

You do realize that the transaction limit is not a rules for determining if blocks are valid according to the Bitcoin while paper.

It's an artifact that almost everyone agreed would be changed before the transaction volume reached the limit and it's now been perverted into a consensus rule and you're defending it.

 

[VeritasSapere]

@jonny1000 I know exactly what I am saying, you might want to check my post history. I am not confused or misinformed about the distinction you are making, that somehow this narrow band of rules is sacrosanct is simply not true. And it is an arbitrary distinction that you are making, I do understand that there is a technical distinction between rules that are "consensus critical" and rules that are not. I consider this distinction to not be applicable for the purpose of governance especially when you consider that these same changes can also be made using a soft fork.

Furthermore from the perspective of the governance of Bitcoin, this technical distinction should make absolutely no difference in terms of the viability of the rule change in terms of the economic majority and the will of its user base.

RBF might have been a bad example because it is not a "consensus critical" rule, but I might as well have used the supply of Bitcoin, segwit, block time change or PoW algorithm change as an example as well. It would make no difference in regards to the point that I have been making.

 

[Richy_T]

Well yes, if I was wrong about Bitcoin and changes can be made to the rules like this I will leave.

Changes *can* be made to the rules. They are just not so far. This is not due to any particular aspect of Bitcoin itself but is related to the politics and human interactions going on around it.

Now, there are some very questionable things going on WRT Blockstream, Core and most especially the Theymos aspects of things. However, even taking into account these things, it is clear to me that the low uptake of Classic means that the balance of the community really isn't clamoring for >1MB blocks. Yet. This is really what makes BU the ideal choice for those who wish to move to allowing larger blocks. It does not try to rally the troops into some big grand gesture of changing consensus rules, it just says "When you are ready, I am ready".

However, with that said, I really think it's too late. Bitcoin is a Supertanker, the captain is drunk at the wheel and we're heading for the rocks. I think there's a good chance that what's coming will make Gox look like nothing.

I do, however, suspect we're going to come out of this even stronger.

 

[jonny1000]

You do realize that the transaction limit is not a rules for determining if blocks are valid according to the Bitcoin while paper.

Yes, it is not mentioned in the whitepaper. I do realize that. As I said many times, the 1MB rule may be:

• stupid
• temporary
• evil
• not mentioned in the whitepaper
• crippling the network
• put there for nefarious reasons
• causing a change to system economics
• more negative comments about it that I am sure you have

However, even if its all of the above, it is still an actual rule. Deal with it.

 

[Norway]

@jonny1000
A computer program is a set of rules.

 

[awemany]

[..]
However, with that said, I really think it's too late. Bitcoin is a Supertanker, the captain is drunk at the wheel and we're heading for the rocks. I think there's a good chance that what's coming will make Gox look like nothing.

I do, however, suspect we're going to come out of this even stronger.

As long as we're not in an ice breaker, I have a sliver of hope left we might end up fine... /s

By the way, here's an interesting, thin skinned comment by a core dev, seemingly asserting that I am personally a major force in furthering Core's group think and an us-vs-them attitude:


As much as I would love to believe I have such a large impact, I think it is an interesting insight into the internal dynamics of the Core team. Greggshells, as @Peter R (?) called it a few pages back seems to be an accurate description.

If that is true, I believe @Jihan swaying from the Core path sufficiently to at least show that there are other forces to be considered, could also help a lot in getting a saner environment again.

 

[Richy_T]

I should be sleeping now but I have things going through my head I want to write. More in the morning. Mostly expounding on a point Peter R has already touched on.
[doublepost=1465194333][/doublepost]Awemany: So, Core devs are making important protocol decisions based on personal enmity rather than technical considerations? Good to know.

 

[awemany]

I am not religious. But Jesus, this guy:

 

[Zarathustra]

"You can not have a narrow or marginal victory, the miners and economic majority will not let you. Once you learn this, you will win." -- @jonny1000

Don't think I agree, but it does sound very Yoda.

Yes, even a miniscule minority (spinoff) can win.

 

[jonny1000]

"You can not have a narrow or marginal victory, the miners and economic majority will not let you. Once you learn this, you will win." -- @jonny1000

Don't think I agree, but it does sound very Yoda.

Yes, Bitcoin's strength flows from strong consensus. Beware of changes in the rules without being strong. Anger, aggression, weakness, marginal victories; the dark side of the Bitcoin are they. If once we start down the weak consensus path, forever will weakness dominate our destiny.

 

[freetrader]

By the way, here's an interesting, thin skinned comment by a core dev, seemingly asserting that I am personally a major force in furthering Core's group think and an us-vs-them attitude:

[... snip quote by /u/midmagic ]

I've wondered a few times now if midmagic is a sock for midnightmagic?

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2zu1j2/who_is_midnightmagic_and_why_is_he_a_mod_of_all/

And I've read elsewhere that people thought Midnight Magic was an alias that Theymos used sometimes on IRC. One could imagine this to be true on the face of Theymos' real name.
Anyone who can confirm/deny the truth of (Midnight Magic == Theymos)?

 

[Zarathustra]

I am not religious. But Jesus, this guy:

@awemany

From the Good Book, the Book of Books (of the philosopher of all philosophers; reloaded):

With this I am at the end (or just at the beginning) and I pronounce my judgment. I condemn Maxwellianism (Blockstreamism). I raise against the Maxwellian Church the most terrible of all accusations that any accuser ever uttered. It is to me the highest of all conceivable corruptions. It has had the will to the last corruption that is even possible. The Maxwellian Church has left nothing untouched by its corruption; it has turned every value into an un-value, every truth into a lie, every integrity into a vileness of the soul. Let anyone dare to speak to me of its "humanitarian" blessings! To abolish any distress ran counter to its deepest advantages: it lived on distress, it created distress to eternalize itself.

This eternal indictment of Maxwellianism I will write on all walls, wherever there are walls—I have letters to make even the blind see.

I call Maxwellianism the one great curse, the one great innermost corruption, the one great instinct of revenge, for which no means is poisonous, stealthy, subterranean, small enough—I call it the one immortal blemish of the whole cryptocurrency space.