Message to Roger Ver

[bitbee99]

 

[AdrianX]

Sean Fontenot, can's see the need to increase the transaction limit, he thinks it's Roger's bad idea, he rejects every one who wants to remove transaction limits because he does not trust Roger.

That is not how we make progress. He is a victim of censorship. More reasons exist to remove the bitcoin transaction limit that do to keep it, or worse subconsciously Sean Fontenot is poling to give control of the limit to developers, because he does not like Roger Ver.

 

[Justin]

@AdrianX not really, even I want a limit increase, but unbounded or miner controlled is contentious. Or do you really think the majority want it unbounded and miner controlled? I really don't think so, but I absolutely believe we have a general agreement that we SHOULD not stay at 1MB.

 

[AdrianX]

@Justin we don't need transaction limits at all.

If you don't want a 1MB limit all you need to do stop insisting it is a needed rule. There are lots of ways the transaction limit is bound, and there are lots of way by which miners are incentivized to process transactions well withing the limit.

Miners are in control of enforcing the rules, they have always been in control and should always be in control. Miners serve the users who create a financial incentives for the needed rules. If you think users can shift that power or change the needed rules, Bitcoin may indeed not be your cup of tea.

What we SHOULD do is remove the limit and then create a general agreement to not mine a transaction above 4 MB until a solution we all agree on is found.

 

[Justin]

@AdrianX well the fact is a lot of people do believe there should be some upper-level limit. If you want to change that current consensus rule, you and your friends are always welcome to hard fork. I want a block size increase and so do many others, but without an upper bound, it's not going to happen. If you believe differently you have enough miner support to split, but I think it's in everyone's best interest to not do so.

 

[AdrianX]

@Justin beliefs are dangerous things when they can not be justified with rational and objective analysis.

I don't want to change anything, I just want miners to use the existing apolitical consensus mechanism to enforce needed rules. That "lot of people [who] do believe there should be some upper-level limit" are welcome to run BU and set it to whatever they think the limit should be.

For now it seems censorship and propaganda has made people quite content to support the 1MB limit forever, I'm patient I'll wait until they give up on supporting the limit. There is no benefit to limiting native bitcoin transactions unless your salary is depending on it.

 

[lunar]

hi @Justin welcome to the forum

If you want to change that current consensus rule,

How do you define a current consensus rule? Are you purely analysing this as though code is law, or are you seeing the bigger picture of economic consensus? i'd argue that the current consensus rules are in the process of being changed because the rules are more than just a line of code in one implementation of a Bitcoin client.

Bitcoin operated from the outset without full blocks, it's economic code stated transactions would be cheap, and with a minimum fee they would be included in the next block. Using a temporary anti spam measure to force transactions off chain and increase the cost of onchain Tx is an untested deviation from the economic consensus rules.

It's this and other finely tuned economic incentives that keep Bitcoin together, not the Core client that anyone with some coding experience can change at will, without permission.

highly recommended reading https://medium.com/@Mengerian/two-theories-of-bitcoin-f4da84468a7a

The big question everyone must answer for themselves: 'Bitcoin is an open source project where anyone can run any code, so how does the system remain in consensus?' aka Byzantine generals problem.

Core have chosen the authoritarian path, you must run our code, if you don't you will be punished, but for all their technical ability they have failed to see this path is doomed because it's unenforceable. Now what? hint, the answer is in the whitepaper.

​

 

[Joel Dalais]

>miner controlled is contentious.

Why? Who says it is? Is it Blockstream side saying it? Because 'Core' doesn't exist and Blockstream doesn't represent Bitcoin Core (as people keep trying to shovel down our throats).

So if Blockstream is not Bitcoin Core, and does not represent Bitcoin Core (or all devs). Then who is saying its contentious and what are the reasons they are giving?

- Are they saying its contentious because it removes central control from their own hands towards miner choice?

Obviously keeping in mind that 'Core' doesn't exist as an entity and that there are many Core developers (who don't all agree).

Of course if you're saying that Blockstream is BitcoinCore and its *them* who's saying it, ok, then I hope you (pro-core people) are starting to see the conflict of interest in their 'contentious' view.