Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Inca]

@jonny1000 enough of your nonsense.

The 1mb blocksize cap is not a consensus rule that the userbase cares about in remotely the same way as the upper limit of 21 million coins. Literally the only reason it is an issue or even known by anyone is the userbase and ecosystem are worried that limiting the network may impact the ability of the bitcoin market cap to rise and prevent a potential influx of new users from occurring in the future.

If your position is that you would rather see the price go to zero to protect such a minor rule (introduced as a spam protection when the average blocksize was 10000 times less than it is now) then you are completely round the bend. Worse you are a destructive force in the ecosystem. If certain developers (Gregory Maxwell) did not seek to profit from the current continuation of the 1mb maximum blocksize rule in bitcoin 'core' then it would have long since been forked away. Furthermore the bitcoin space would be richer for a wider diversity of developers still active in the space.

The bitcoin price is rallying - but that is a reflection of the halving (IMO) and certainly not any vindication of the current governance failings surrounding bitcoin.

edit: and if you are going to make stupid statements like not caring about sacrificing the entire value of the bitcoin ecosystem to preserve a minor technical spam protection code change from 2010 then at least have the decency to not edit them away after we all rage at you for it!

 

[Dusty]

Many people, including me, made these assumptions about how difficiult it was to do a HF in the 2010 and 2011 period, we made asuumptions on top of these and became more conviced of these assumptions as Bitcoin succeded. You clearly made a different set of assumptions, that is why there is this dispute. We have deeply held views going back years.

If people like you want to prevent the use of Bitcoin from the general people I find nice that you leave it after an hard fork that raises the block size and increments its usability and hence its value.

Let us know when you'll sell all your coins so we can make a double party when we will cross 1000$ again

 

[jonny1000]

I've described Bitcoin as being "The People's Money" for years. And therein lies the distinction from @jonny1000 and I in our conception of what Bitcoin is.

You are wrong in your assumptions about how the other side thinks. We disagree on the practicalities, incentives and game theory over how to HF. To some extent the large blockers do not fully understand these nuaces and therefore make false assumptions over how the small blockers think. Please try to be open minded, assume good faith and listen.

I think the incentives in the system are structured such that a HF can only happen with strong consensus. This gives a significant minority veto power over a HF, this is not power or control over others, the minority cannot make changes to the rules, but only prevent them from changing. This applies to the actual rules enforced by the nodes, not what some users may percieve as rules. Just because you disagree with this or think its stupid, does not mean you should doubt the other side when they say that is how they think the system does and should work.

I even made a nice venn diagram for you, stop assuming the other side are evil, dishonest, do not like monetray freedom or are against Bitcoin.

[doublepost=1465828342][/doublepost]

The 1mb blocksize cap is not a consensus rule that the userbase cares about in remotely the same way as the upper limit of 21 million coins.

It is a techical rule enforced by the nodes. I agree that we need to look at the sitiation from many angles, such as markets and human understandings, however the technical angle of the actual rules is a very important part of this. In partcular the techical rules are crucial in determining the longest valid chain.
[doublepost=1465828431][/doublepost]

Let us know when you'll sell all your coins

Well I can let you know now, if the HF happens without strong enough consensus, I will sell my coins on your side of the chain as fast as I can.
[doublepost=1465828466][/doublepost]

If people like you want to prevent the use of Bitcoin from the general people

Nobody wants that. Please stop these counterproductive, divisive and false rumours.

 

[Peter R]

@sickpig: they must have a bot that waits for you to make a submission and then flips the sorting to controversial!

 

[chriswilmer]

Hey guys. I'm always thinking in the back of my mind of ulterior motives for keeping blocks at 1 MB (that haven't already been discussed).

It occurred to me (but maybe this is incorrect), that coin mixing services would be the most adversely affected by small blocks. The rest of us have to pay "slightly higher fees" , but coin mixing might be very cost prohibitive if it involves hundreds of transactions. Maybe that's the real motive.

 

[Dusty]

Nobody wants that. Please stop these counterproductive, divisive and false rumours.

That's not a rumor, it is a fact and a simple true statement: artificial limiting of the block size is a way to implement production quota (used in socialist countries like Russia or Venezuela).
A smaller block means a smaller number of processed transactions per day, and this means a smaller number of people per day/month/year.

While obviously the block can't be infinitely large , it certainly can be raised for obvious reasons like:
- better and faster code (the signature verification alone is at least 7x faster than the original code with 1mb limit)
- better and faster internet (since 2010 my internet connection is 10 times faster, and with almost 1 tenth of the latency)
- better algorithms (xthin/compact blocks/relay network/etc gives at least 10x the performance)
- faster CPUs (mine is around 10 times faster, considering all the cores)
- many more cores (original code in 2010 used only one!)

So, as you can see, even if my situation is certainly not the same all over the world, for me the overall is around 7000x globally faster.

I understand that this does not mean that we can have a 7000 increase in the block size, but we certainly can increase it by a factor of 2-10

 

[cypherdoc]

No, because you don't understand what you're doing our how Bitcoin should evolve. I believe that bitcoin evolves through the process of free choice. The free choice of allowing users and miners to decide on the implementation of their choice based on devs who also see and can predict the same economic incentives that the majority of freedom seeking people want. Kore dev clearly doesn't have that ability or share those same values. You insist on a perverted consensus that allows you to interfere and coerse through intimidation and corruption. No thanks.

If we maintain the property that a HF is avoided, without strong consensus and the price goes to near zero, there is at least the opportunity Bitcoin can pick up again. If a consensus rule is eliminated without consensus, Bitcoin is as good as dead.

As a long term value investor, short term price fluctuations do not concern me much. I belive in Bitcoin for the long term, due to its unique robustness, driven by the design feature that the rules can not be eliminated without strong consensus from the entire community.

Lets get to 2MB, but please let the people who agree with me about robust rules stay on the same chain with you. Can you do that?

 

[jonny1000]

I understand that this does not mean that we can have a 7000 increase in the block size, but we certainly can increase it by a factor of 2-10

Agreed. Now let's work together to build consensus around this in a patient, non threatening way...

 

[Norway]

@Peter Tschipper @theZerg @sickpig @solex @Peter R @Jihan @cypherdoc and other donors:

Thanks you guys!​

 

[theZerg]

I've worked in software startups for 20+ years and I have to say that I've met certain people who are completely rational, reasonable, and logical. Yet they consistently make the wrong decisions. And you know, there are other people who make consistently the right decisions -- combine that with personal magnetism and a bit of luck and you get Steve Jobs for example. I've always wished some psychologist would research this...

But anyway, here are some of my observations about the situation:
1. In a complex decision with many variables, what ends up mattering is how you weight the variables. These people apply the wrong weights (as judged by the subsequent negative outcome).
2. Blind spots -- the person simply ignores certain arguments, often because he/she is enamoured of his own arguments creating a one-man kool-aid station.
3. Fails to look at the context, the macroscopic situation
4. Its utterly impossible to change their minds, or change their methodology even in the face of repeated incorrect decision making, even in the face of multiple individuals offering repeated sound arguments.

jonny1000's got it bad (jonny I know you won't believe me now, but remember this maybe you can eventually get a self-help book on decision making process or something -- I'm not saying that everyone in Core is like this -- I can understand certain people's motives -- its only your particular and unique form of small block-ism that qualifies), but also probably some of the people who sold out due to the block size issue right in front of the halving (#1). I mean, a Bitcoin for the banks and international transfer will still be a wildly successful product, even though we all on this forum wish that it would be for the people (#3).

The people who argue that the halving price was "priced in" because it was known since day 1 are candidates by #2. At the same time, those of you who didn't move any value into Ethereum or Monero may be the same way on the other side (#4). These 2 coins have unique and valuable properties that Bitcoin does not have and given the current development situation the argument that Bitcoin can easily get them must be reconsidered.

 

[Dusty]

Agreed. Now let's work together to build consensus around this in a patient, non threatening way...

We already tried that: Kore does not want for political reasons. They tried to give some technical reasons but the bullshits was so big that most of times they contradicted themselves.

So the only way left to raise the block size is gather enough consensus to fork it.

Join us.

 

[jonny1000]

jonny1000's got it bad (jonny I know you won't believe me now, but remember this maybe you can eventually get a self-help book on decision making process or something -- I'm not saying that everyone in Core is like this -- I can understand certain people's motives -- its only your particular and unique form of small block-ism that qualifies)

I keep repeating, I am happy with anything less than 10MB now or BIP100, it is just that I understand why we cannot HF without consensus from the entire community. In order to get that consensus I understand that we should not be threatening others. Lets discuss things without threats and move to 2MB.

We already tried that

That is not true, Gavin put forward 20MB, the lead of Core then said he was "weakly against it for now", clearing the way for a moderate proposal like 4MB. Gavin could have eaily got 4MB then if he wanted to. Instead of that, the attacks locking in increases to 8GB started. Lets end the attacks and get increases with calm collaboration.

So the only way left to raise the block size is gather enough consensus to fork it.

I agree, lets gather that consensus. It will not happen with threats.

Join us

 

[awemany]

This one's quite encouraging, thanks @Jihan for speaking your mind:

 

[Norway]

I am happy with anything less than 10MB now

Just 10MB? 20MB is the new 2MB! (https://medium.com/@peter_r/towards-massive-on-chain-scaling-block-propagation-results-with-xthin-5145c9648426#.ktmggwcc2)

 

[jonny1000]

Just 10MB? 20MB is the new 2MB! (https://medium.com/@peter_r/towards...on-results-with-xthin-5145c9648426#.ktmggwcc2)

Sorry I have not read all those posts, the politicical title and 5 parts put me off. I will get round to it soon.

 

[Dusty]

That is not true, Gavin put forward 20MB, the lead of Core then said he was "weakly against it for now", clearing the way for a moderate proposal like 4MB. Gavin could have eaily got 4MB then if he wanted to. Instead of that, the attacks locking in increases to 8GB started. Lets end the attacks and get increases with calm collaboration.

You missed the part where Kore stated that they will never, ever, increase the block size with an hard fork and instead it will increase tx processing only with soft forks using segwit & C.

 

[Norway]

Sorry I have not read all those posts, the politicical title and 5 parts put me off. I will get round to it soon.

Time to get up to speed if you want to debate this topic on this forum, lol!

 

[jonny1000]

You missed the part where Kore stated that they will never, ever, increase the block size with an hard fork and instead it will increase tx processing only with soft forks using segwit & C.

Yes I did miss that. Who from Core said that?

 

[theZerg]

I keep repeating, I am happy with anything less than 10MB now or BIP100, it is just that I understand why we cannot HF without consensus from the entire community. In order to get that consensus I understand that we should not be threatening others. Lets discuss things without threats and move to 2MB.



That is not true, Gavin put forward 20MB, the lead of Core then said he was "weakly against it for now", clearing the way for a moderate proposal like 4MB. Gavin could have eaily got 4MB then if he wanted to. Instead of that, the attacks locking in increases to 8GB started. Lets end the attacks and get increases with calm collaboration.



I agree, lets gather that consensus. It will not happen with threats.

Join us

Ok so the above is an example of 2 fundamental world view mistakes that confuse your reasoning.

1. We are not "threatening" to HF. A hard fork is a threat like a tornado -- it is not a bully threatening you, it just exists. If its "threatening" to you, you built the wrong structure. Read War and Peace (or just the beginning).

2. The world doesn't follow your consensus fantasy. The 2nd biggest computer company (DEC), and countless others, failed because of "consensus" oriented decision making.

Many, if not ALL robust organizational structures from your body to human societies works via a fractal interaction between groups which cooperate and compete. For example, BU competes with Core yet we cooperate (share code and ideas) in a larger competition against fiat and gold. Football teams compete inside a country, and then the best players reform for the world cup. Cells in the developing brain compete to become neurons or support cells.

 

[pekatete]

Sorry I have not read all those posts, the politicical title and 5 parts put me off. I will get round to it soon.

What on the bitcoin earth is political about the series' title? You are playing the sensitive underdog underlined by your ever-increasing pile of tripe arguments. I did, personally, have room for your arguments here, even allowing for the rather frequent illogical ones, but this takes the biscuit and you should be ashamed of yourself.
[doublepost=1465836956][/doublepost]

Yes I did miss that. Who from Core said that?

If you did miss that, you should not be here as all your arguments (like the dipshits in HK) count for nothing.