Visual arguments on the blocksize cap, dev decentralization, etc.

[awemany]

@Zangelbert Bingledack : We are going to miss /u/raisethelimit in this thread. Is he around? @raisethelimit?

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

Can someone change this to say:

CORE
CONSENSUSWORTH SPOON-FEEDING

Also, archiving these from the other thread:

[doublepost=1451382887][/doublepost]Also from @Peter R

[doublepost=1451382988][/doublepost]And from @Windowly

 

[Windowly]

I've done another one today. . . [doublepost=1451466996][/doublepost]I want to do one as well on the concept of the blocksize being two different concepts in BU, but I haven't figured out the exact wording yet. If any of you have any quotes that specially stuck out to you on that please post them this way.

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

@Windowly

I like it!

Possible alternative final sentence: "The free-market approach." (But I can see how "natural" ties in with the butterfly. Perhaps this version would use a nice image evoking free markets somehow.) Whether natural or free market is a better frame I'm not sure.

 

[Windowly]

I've also done your one @Zangelbert Bingledack . How is it?
[doublepost=1451469779][/doublepost]

@Windowly

I like it!

Possible alternative final sentence: "The free-market approach." (But I can see how "natural" ties in with the butterfly. Perhaps this version would use a nice image evoking free markets somehow.) Whether natural or free market is a better frame I'm not sure.

Ah I like the idea of putting free markets in there. . . I used natural because I think of free markets as natural in the sense that their is no interference or coercion. And the butterfly to tie into emergent. . . (maybe a bit far-fetched there, I don't know)

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

@Windowly

Ooh thanks! I think for it to work the font has to be similar enough to the TED branding font (bold Helvetica?) to evoke the same feel. So at least thicker and a bit bigger. I spent an hour testing various fonts on a font website, but I couldn't find an option to bold it and I don't have the Helvetica font package myself.

Also: no need to attribute to me on any idea, I usually prefer it when my ideas appear to come from nowhere - but fine if you do as well.

The timing of the posting of this image may be crucial: right when the consensus being spoonfed issue arises, like when there is popular thread about it next (like that epic one by /u/anarchystar a few days ago). That includes a big thread or push from the Core side for "peer reviewed consensus" or whatever.
[doublepost=1451470491][/doublepost]Edit: The black text is pretty much perfect.

 

[Windowly]

Here is another one: [doublepost=1451471845,1451471164][/doublepost]

@Windowly

Ooh thanks! I think for it to work the font has to be similar enough to the TED branding font (bold Helvetica?) to evoke the same feel. So at least thicker and a bit bigger. I spent an hour testing various fonts on a font website, but I couldn't find an option to bold it and I don't have the Helvetica font package myself.

Also: no need to attribute to me on any idea, I usually prefer it when my ideas appear to come from nowhere - but fine if you do as well.

The timing of the posting of this image may be crucial: right when the consensus being spoonfed issue arises, like when there is popular thread about it next (like that epic one by /u/anarchystar a few days ago). That includes a big thread or push from the Core side for "peer reviewed consensus" or whatever.
[doublepost=1451470491][/doublepost]Edit: The black text is pretty much perfect.

Hmm I tried bold Helvetica - it must be a different font. . . I'll keep trying to see what I could do.
[doublepost=1451472143][/doublepost]This is not the same red font. . . but it's a lot more blocky at least.

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

Hmm still doesn't have that "TED" feel. Looks like maybe it's Helvetica Neue:

http://developer.ted.com/Branding_Guidelines

The anti-aliasing may also be key for the look.

(If you do prefer to attribute me, please use /u/ForkiusMaximus - though no attribution is preferred)

 

[Windowly]

@Zangelbert Bingledack ok I'll take out any attribution . . . like I usually do.

Yes it doesn't have the TED feel.
[doublepost=1451475038][/doublepost]@Zangelbert Bingledack Here are two -- first with Helvetica, and the second with Helvetic Neue.

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

Hmm first one is better I think. Still letters too thin though. Maybe apply I slight blur effect? Or just go with it at this point

Anyway, no memes on/r/btc at the moment and the fee market thread is up, maybe a good time to post that Satoshi shadow pic?

 

[Bloomie]

@Windowly Can you please use Imgur for images instead of attachments? Keeps the database leaner. Thanks!

 

[Windowly]

Satoshi shadow pic is posted!

 

[Windowly]

@Bloomie Ok sure!
[doublepost=1451489881][/doublepost]And another one posted -- this a letter from Satoshi (rather text-heavy) but still rather damning.

And another one here:

 

[Peter R]

I couldn't stop laughing for about a minute after I saw this!

You guys should get the fonts and formatting for this nailed and then try to submit to North Korea. Note that there's a space missing between "consensus" and "worth."

Also, there's been lots of memes on /r/btc lately. So I'd hold this back a day or so for max impact.

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

The lack of a space between the first two words is actually a part of the logo.

 

[Peter R]

Oh right, I see.

There should be no space between "worth" and "spoon" then too.

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

Bonus points if an unrelated TED talk gets posted half a day before. Then the logo will be primed in people's minds. This one is cool, but I'm not sure if it's relevant enough to Bitcoin to make it in NK.


Note: They have a new logo that may also work:

https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_shows_the_best_stats_you_ve_ever_seen?language=en

 

[Windowly]

Cool. I'm banned in NK but I'll but I'll post a finished one here for any of you guys to try posting it

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

Image idea: Modify this something like @Roger_Murdock describes below.

Note that in this metaphor the people crowded around the guy with the podium (obviously representing Core) don't all support Core's chosen direction. In fact, we can imagine that many of those signs say "Raise the Block Size Limit Now!" But those people are still part of the problem by failing to recognize that we don't need Core's permission to raise the block size. They're the people fretting on Reddit that "Core is killing Bitcoin" and threatening to sell all their bitcoins for alts. The guy walking away? He's the guy running (or coding up) an alternative implementation like Bitcoin Unlimited. That's what we need more of.

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

I think powerful imagery could be made based on this comment by @Roger_Murdock:

I was thinking more about this idea of the "blocked stream." And the more I think about it, the more it strikes me that this is a really damn good analogy for our situation (Dad joke: it's also a really good dam analogy).

This analogy first gives us the idea of pressure. If increased transactional demand causes the equilibrium block size to be larger than the artificial limit, that's going to create well, pressure. Now some (who I'll allow to remain nameless) might hope that the pressure caused by blocking the stream(TM) will simply force more of the transactional flow to be diverted to their preferred off-chain solutions. But that can only work if the dam holds.

So focusing on another aspect of the analogy, what is this "dam" made of? Well, it turns out, nothing very substantial. We might think of one layer of the dam as the "inconvenience barrier," the fact that, until recently, it was kind of a pain for most users to mod the Core code to set their own block size limit parameters. Another layer might be thought of as the "psychological barrier." This one I think is well-illustrated by that cartoon I linked to the other day. Breaking down this barrier simply involves recognizing that Core is not Bitcoin, we already have the power to change the block size limit ourselves by choosing what code we run, and we should exercise that power because allowing the decision about a key economic parameter to be made in a centralized manner is incredibly dangerous. If I had to name a third layer, I might say the "collective action barrier," i.e., we can all raise the limit if a substantial number of us act in concert, but no one can raise it by themselves. (Frankly, I think this last one is pretty minor compared to the first two.)

This provides a good summary of why I'm so optimistic that the limit will get raised. The pressure that's attempting to sweep away the dam is only going to increase as blocks get fuller and fees start to rise significantly. (As far I can tell, as of right now, this pressure has barely even started.) In addition, the dam itself is beginning to weaken. The "inconvenience barrier" is being rapidly eroded by Bitcoin Unlimited. Bitcoin Unlimited and the ideas behind it are also contributing to the erosion of the "psychological barrier." Maybe it's my own bias, but just based on what I've seen in the past week, BU seems to be starting to capture mind share very quickly.

(As an aside, this analogy also provides a nice visual for my thoughts on the frequently voiced concern that the current obstruction will allow an alt-ledger to take over. To me, that would be sort of like our metaphorical river tunneling through a half mile of solid rock to flow through an alternate available channel. The market could do that if it had to. But it doesn't have to because it's not the path of least resistance. Again, our "dam" here is mostly an illusion.)