Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[jbreher]

Part 5 of 5: Massive on-chain scaling begins with block sizes up to 20MB.

https://medium.com/@peter_r/towards-massive-on-chain-scaling-block-propagation-results-with-xthin-5145c9648426

Final post of the Xthin article series.

Excellent conclusion - great work by the team.

Favorite single line: “Let the free market bike-shed over the details.”
- zing!

eta: 'single'
[doublepost=1465837799][/doublepost]

If a consensus rule is eliminated without consensus, Bitcoin is as good as dead.

oxymoronic statement is oxymoronic

The only mechanism for eliminating a consensus rule is via consensus.

 

[jbreher]

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.

Well, they're contradicting themselves then. The bitcoin-dev post gmaxwell made outlining his ideas for the future, which was subsequently referred to -- on a Core post with signatures from dozens of Core devs -- as the Core roadmap, explicitly mentions the probability of a hard forked block size increase at some unspecified future point.

 

[nowayman]

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?

This is manipulation. They'll be present on both chains, since both chains will have same root. All they must do is keep BTCs at own keys.
If Core vision is right they will win anyway, and mining industry is safe so why you worry so much?
If Core vision is wrong... - fuck them.
That's all from me, thank you.

 

[Zarathustra]

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?

No, I don't want to stay on the same chain with those who support totalitarians and their perverted 5 percent consensus. Better to fork away as far as possible.

 

[AdrianX]

Part 5 of 5: Massive on-chain scaling begins with block sizes up to 20MB.

https://medium.com/@peter_r/towards-massive-on-chain-scaling-block-propagation-results-with-xthin-5145c9648426

Final post of the Xthin article series.

Amazing work to list of authors and all those who've contributed well done. I'd like to extend my gratitude to @jonny1000 as well, your dissenting voice has also been valuable in highlighting pockets of ignorance.

The fact that constructive criticism is censored from r/bitcoin leads me to believe there is no rational objections other than political and authoritarian will.
[doublepost=1465843170,1465842557][/doublepost]

Ghana is the default 0-0 coordinate, when Google can't get the location it just puts 0-0 in. See I can make some neitral non blcoksize comments.

very positive none the less trending UP
[doublepost=1465843433][/doublepost]

If you want to assume bad faith then fine. If you assume good faith then please listen when I try to explain this dispute. 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.

that's not an excuse to ignore the facts I've tried to present to you, you're still confusing issues, when it comes to consensus and removing the limit. .

 

[freetrader]

Many people, including me, made these assumptions about how difficiult it was to do a HF in the 2010 and 2011 period, we made assumptions 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.

Jonny, at the bottom of your stack of assumptions is a wrong one (how difficult it is to HF). Once you get this out the way I promise you'll see the world differently, and be able to slowly dismantle the edifice of other assumptions you've built on top of it. There is still time to correct it, and hard-forking won't even be the catastrophe you imagine, so you'll find yourself in a period of relief where you can take the appropriate action to adjust your positions to a new reality.

I think the incentives in the system are structured such that a HF can only happen with strong consensus.

If the incentives in the system are already structured in the way you describe, there is no requirement for percentage thresholds like 95% to be in the code, and to keep the code clean, simple and unbiased they should be removed.

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.

I don't think you'll be able to sell the concept that veto power is not power or control over others.
That fact is too well understood both intuitively (through application of our logical faculties) and historically:

Many historians hold that the principle of liberum veto was a major cause of the deterioration of the Commonwealth political system—particularly in the 18th century, when foreign powers bribed Sejm members to paralyze its proceedings

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberum_veto

For a more contemporary example we might consider the UN Security Council.

 

[AdrianX]

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.

@jonny1000 Just to reiterate what we discuss here and what we all agree on counts for nothing when it comes to contributing to the 95% consensus. Our votes don't count!

If you support the idea of bigger blocks, put your money where your mouth is and run Bitcoin Unlimited.

You will follow the majority consensus always and you give the miners an option when there is consensus to increase the block size. The reality is, risking anything other than 100% eventual consensus is undesirable and costly to miners, while it may only take 51% most will look for other forms of consensus. The bottom line is it is what it is, and it's never going to be 95% consensus as defined by a core group of insiders.

It's Ignorant to assume you have any say in that 95% consensus, you can only say to miners I'll accept bigger blocks or I won't. Other than that you have no voice in the consensus hard fork to move the block limit.

We are not the problem, we're just expressing we will accept bigger blocks, we are only a treat to those who want to limit the blockchain for various reasons, this is a logical conclusion given the current censorship of the ideas we discuss.

You have some audacity to asking us to stop expressing a will for bigger blocks because it is currently in opposition to the core group of insiders who have defined your 95% consensus rule.

You're asking us to self censor for the greater good so the PR efforts of the small block centralised authority can achieve its 95% consensus goal. LOL
[doublepost=1465845511,1465844745][/doublepost]

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

LOL the title "Towards Massive On-Chain Scaling: Block Propagation Results With Xthin" is not threatening it's optimistic, what exactly is your agenda?

 

[Norway]

Gavin likes it too:

 

[Dusty]

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

It seems like you miss a lot of things. You'll understand, if you will look at kore actions, instead of words.

Well, they're contradicting themselves then. The bitcoin-dev post gmaxwell made outlining his ideas for the future, which was subsequently referred to -- on a Core post with signatures from dozens of Core devs --

Yes they are clearly contradicting themselves, and also, they say one thing in public and another one in private.

as the Core roadmap, explicitly mentions the probability of a hard forked block size increase at some unspecified future point

Yes, the key here is the "unspecified future point": it's like johnny proposing to use BU with n = infinity.

 

[jl777]

I was just told that bitcointalk's technical section has no bitcoin devs there...
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1510614.0

But when I post questions about the libsecp256k1 schnorr sigs library that is in bitcoin, the thread is moved to the altcoin section proactively by someone that I think claims to be a bitcoin dev...

really, it is quite frustrating trying to develop bitcoin when the main devs appear to be most active in not helping

 

[Zarathustra]

New alltime high:

 

[cypherdoc]

I can't see this comment because of Android. can you post a different link?

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

 

[sickpig]

@cypherdoc

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4nvc23/average_fees_today_will_very_probably_be_over_20/d47cjsu?context=3

 

[AdrianX]

@cypherdoc its the top voted comment on this thread:
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4nvc23/average_fees_today_will_very_probably_be_over_20/

I'm not sure why comments don't load on android some times.
Have you tried "desktop view" when that happens? and you could try google chrome (I use it on my tablet) and i don't recall seeing the problem there. but just now when i went to trouble shoot its working - may also be IP dependant.

 

[albin]

@AdrianX

I get the same thing sometimes on iOS Safari.

 

[taxed4ever]

Congratulations on the Bitcoin Unlimited Xthin series, it was great!

I see Bitcoin Unlimited as the #1 used client, it will just take 4 - 5 years.

You have my support and anyone I speak to, thank you!

 

[Kupsi]

How high will it go this time?

https://azopstability.com/

 

[Mengerian]

Some interesting comments by Vinny Lingham on how he expects the blocksize debate to be resolved. He predicts that increasing market pressure after the halving, and a possible re-configuration of the mining pools, will lead to bigger blocks. I tend to agree with his view.


The rest of his talk is also interesting, he offers a very clearheaded analysis of Bitcoin price dynamics.

 

[jonny1000]

The world doesn't follow your consensus fantasy

Yes I know, but Bitcoin does, with respect to removing the rules. That is why Bitcoin is unique.
[doublepost=1465899970,1465899346][/doublepost]

I don't want to stay on the same chain with those who support totalitarians

Why are they totalitarians? Is it because of the following:

1. Meeting in HK, with an agreement from miners to run only Core compatible code in a live enviroment
   
2. Blockstream paying a small minority of developers to work on Bitcoin infrastructure, while the developers are still free to express their own opinions
   
3. A private web forum deciding not to be a venue to facilitate the attack

Why are the XT/Classic actions any less totaliterian:

1. Secret centralised powerful industry/miners meeting and collaboration behind closed doors with an agreement to impose changes on the community and a commitment to run incompatible code - https://bitcoinxt.software/industry-letter.pdf
2. Classic mining fund (bribery)/ Classic cloud (bribery and increasing centralisation)
3. Creating many reddit accounts and downvoting those who express a different opinion

I think many XT/Classic people view this situation from a very biased angle. Each side does the same thing and yet one is totaliteriansim and the other is legitimate. The difference in my view is that Core are defending the exisiting actual rules while Classic is trying to impose changes. However, the tactics are almost identicle. Can't you guys see this?

[doublepost=1465900172][/doublepost]

I'd like to extend my gratitude to @jonny1000 as well, your dissenting voice has also been valuable in highlighting pockets of ignorance.

Thankyou
[doublepost=1465900784][/doublepost]

LOL the title "Towards Massive On-Chain Scaling: Block Propagation Results With Xthin" is not threatening it's optimistic, what exactly is your agenda?

I may be wrong, but to me the phrase "On-Chain Scaling", feels political. It feels to me like an indirect and false accusation that Core are only doing off-chain scaling. This is false, the Core team is doing both ON-CHAIN Scaling & ON-CHAIN Capacity increases.

Examples of on-chain scaling from the Core team:

• Libsecp256k1 signature verification, making it c7x faster to verfiy signatures
• Removing the quadratic scaling of hashed data for verifying signatures
  
• Opt in RBF
• Child pays for parent
• Pruned mode
• Avoiding downloading the historic signatures

Examples of on-chain capacity enhancements from the Core team:

• SegWit
• Schnorr signatures
• Aggregated signatures
• HF to 2MB of non witness data, once the animosity and political tension over the issue is insignificant or the number of people with the idea of forcing the increase without consensus, becomes insiginificant

If this is non intentional, I apologise. However some people put forward the false and divisive accusation that Core is only doing off-chain scaling and therefore emphasise the words "on-chain".



I have great news guys:
1. Classic miner support looks like it is falling to 3%
2. Nodes compatible with the exisiting rules are around 88%

Therefore it likes like we are entering conditions where a HF to 2MB can occur. If only SegWit activates without being used as blackmail, we should be ok...

 

[freetrader]

If only SegWit activates