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

Peter R

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
1,398
5,595
Yes, this inspired me to start working on a new animated GIF that also relates to the block-size-limit signalling we're adding to the user-agent string. I need to finish writing an engineering project proposal for my non-Bitcoin life first though!
[doublepost=1452217223][/doublepost]BTW--did @Windowly finish the "consensus worth spoon feeding" meme? That one was hilarious:p
 

Zangelbert Bingledack

Well-Known Member
Aug 29, 2015
1,485
5,585
Visualization of this post...
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.)
...in an animation created by @Peter R:


CDF = Cumulative Distribution Function?

This might be a lot for a viewer to take in at once (I say this because I didn't immediately see all the nuance). Presenting a simpler version first, or above this one, may help. In it, "Node block size limit CDF" could be replaced by "Block fullness," "Mining generation limit" --> "Block size limit," and "Nodes form new consensus" would be skipped (and the gradual moving down of the black line would be a discrete jump). It would just look at the miners.

That would establish some visual conventions.

Then when including the nodes to "see what is really going on in total" this visual would be easier to understand. Also, the nodes form new consensus specifically on the acceptance limit, right? So maybe in the second animation "Higher limit" should be "Higher acceptance limit" or something.

Also, I didn't notice at first that the top text was changing. Could add some color to it, like "Forking pressure builds" text going from green to red gradually as node limit rises, and then "Miners relieve pressure" from red to green as the generation limit grows.

I may have partly misunderstood the intent here, so take this with a grain of salt.
 
Last edited:

Peter R

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
1,398
5,595
@Zangelbert Bingledack

All good points.

I think it's important to communicate the "cummulative distribution function" as this is something @hellobitc0inworld will be able to start to plot once we get the block-size-limit signalling added to the version string.

But I now agree that this is probably too much to take in all at once. I think I'll take your suggestion to do it as a multi-part figure as you suggested.
 

Roger_Murdock

Active Member
Dec 17, 2015
223
1,453


Image or animation idea:

~Bitcoin Dev Decentralization~

The One Ring, labeled "Bitcoin Core" or just "Core," fall into lava and melts, dispersing into a multiplicity of competing implementations. The ring being round like @Peter R's animated pie chart (posted above) may help.

Optional variation with Golem reaching for the ring in vain. This would make it very polemical; putting someone's face/name on Golem would be way too vindictive so I strongly advise against it, though someone would probably alter it that way if the image became popular. Note that in the movie Golem falls into the lava and dies, so really please don't do this.
Just saw this, but I've always loved "The One Ring" as a metaphor for central banking and Bitcoin as a metaphor for the attempt to destroy it. It's really pretty perfect. You've got the familiar ideas that "money is power" / "power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Well if that's true, I'd say the monopoly power to conjure money out of thin air comes pretty damn close to "absolute power." So central banking / The One Ring is a power that is simply too great to be wielded by any one individual or entity without corrupting them. If Bitcoin ever does succeed in "taking over the world" and bringing an end to fiat money, it will have destroyed that power forever. Another striking similarity between the two "quests" is their "epic" scale and seemingly-impossible odds. If anything, an anonymous computer geek bringing down the might of central banking is slightly more implausible than a lowly hobbit bringing down the might of Sauron.