The History of Bitcoins August 1st Fork Crypto-News.net
Dear miners: want the price of Bitcoin to go way up so your fees and coinbase rewards are worth more? Support BIP101.
Let me tell you a quick story... I started a small Bitcoin company that is going through the joy of fundraising right now, like every other startup on the planet. Do you know the #1 reason people are avoiding investing in Bitcoin? It's not that our company, product or team are weak. They are all great. It's that the internal politics of Bitcoin are affecting the total addressable market of users. Translation: they won't invest because they see the upside as capped because they don't think more people will enter the market as users. They see an internally divided community and what probably looks like a possible death spiral. And do you know what? They are right. Capping the blocksize at 1mb limits us to 200,000 transactions a day, about enough for a few 100k nerds who already use Bitcoin. By supporting unpopular scaling options, or gridlock, you are driving investment money and users away from Bitcoin. This ultimately is what is holding the price down. Do you want to know how to make a lot of money right now? Support bip101! The simple announcement that major miners are supporting bip101 will send the price of Bitcoin through the roof. Venture capital will unfreeze, money will start to flow back into the industry, and the bull market will resume. That's all. I hope you are listening. Edit: I'm not an investment advisor and this does not constitute investment advice. This message is for miners, not speculating bitcoin noobs. All the usual disclaimers about bitcoin apply, it could go to zero, it's an experiment, no guarantees, yada yada yada. But seriously miners, get with the program. BIP101!
Fellow Miners, Some of you receive emails and phone calls from developers. I am not big enough to get that treatment. So I am sorry if I am not an expert in the arguments against BIP 101. My reasons to favor BIP 101 are GROWTH, FEES, LIGHTNING NETWORK, NO FEAR, and NO MORE FIGHTING. GROWTH I expected bitcoin to grow a lot faster than the growth in BIP 101 anyway. FEES Higher fees/kb do not make up for restricted block size! When there is no room for a tx, another tx would have to pay double. That will not happen. It is better to have room to mine the extra tx. LIGHTNING NETWORK Lightning Network sends fees to non-miners. But I am happy to handle the business. Lightning Network does not actually require the bitcoin blockchain! It can easily switch to using another coin and one that does not use SHA256. Nobody uses Lightning Network. Lightning Network does not exist. NO FEAR I will not make a block that is too big for you to process (it would be bad for me). I am not afraid that you will attack me by making blocks that are too big for me to process. When have bitcoin miners ever attacked each other like this? It would be very pessimistic for me to think that you will attack me tomorrow when you have never done it before, and the attack would hurt you anyway. NO MORE FIGHTING BIP 101 is the only BIP that tries to end block size fights for 20 years. Maybe it will not succeed in that. But it is the only BIP that tries.
What if Bitcoin Core becomes a major altcoin after a fork?
Hello. This is from a conversation about the Bitcoin XT fork over here. First I will post the full quote then reply to individual quotes:
But as for the three coins though- remember that unless explicitly told not to, nodes on the two chains will still try to relay transactions to each other. That leads to a few scenarios:
Old-coin transaction with low fee- overloaded Core chain rejects, 101 chain accepts. Core chain thinks coins haven't moved, 101 chain thinks they have. Double spend possible (spend once with 101 merchant and low fee, spend again with Core merchant and higher fee). Since old coins make up a majority of the market right now, this attack may become common.
Old-coin transaction with high fee- overloaded Core chain accepts, 101 chain accepts. Both chains see coins have moved. As long as they are moved to a fresh address they stay 'old' and in sync on both chains. Double spend not possible.
Core-coin transaction- rejected by 101 chain as originating address doesn't have coins in it. Double spend not possible.
101-coin transaction- rejected by Core chain either due to insufficient fee or because originating address doesn't have coins in it. Double spend not possible.
The real problem comes when an address gets mixed coins- for example when you take an old-coin address (such as a paper wallet) and then send coins to it in a transaction that only works on one chain. Now you have two copies of that address, one on each chain, each with different ideas about how many coins are in the address and where they came from.
Double spend possible (spend once with 101 merchant and low fee, spend again with Core merchant and higher fee). Since old coins make up a majority of the market right now, this attack may become common.
Wait a second. How many people believe this gibberish? If Core is making blocks much slower than 101, won't RBF make it extremely easy to keep the 101 transactions from being included on Core? [Update: Apparently it will be easier to split the dual-chain-bitcoins by tainting them. Please ignore my instructions before this edit on New Years day 2016.] This doesn't even require a modified Bitcoin Core client, does it? That isn't really a "double spend", that is why a Core client allows it. Let me name the three currencies that will exist after the fork:
Core-bitcoin - bitcoin that is ONLY valid on the Core chain
101-bitcoin - bitcoin that is ONLY valid on the 101 chain
Dual-chain-bitcoin - bitcoin residing at the same addresses on both chains and for which a transaction could be valid on both chains (I'm not exactly sure what happens when derps send different transactions to the same addresses on both chains but I do know this is a bad idea.)
The only way to be sure we have "Bitcoin" back is if Core reverts 101 and everyone gives up on 101. If that happens it means that the transaction on the 101 chain was not really a Bitcoin transaction. Either everyone gives up on Core, or we have three currencies, or everyone splits all their dual-chain-bitcoin into the two currencies, and/or Core reverts 101. None of these scenarios require "double spending" or a "51% attack", they are conflicting/competing definitions of Bitcoin.
Old-coin transaction with high fee- overloaded Core chain accepts, 101 chain accepts. Both chains see coins have moved. As long as they are moved to a fresh address they stay 'old' and in sync on both chains. Double spend not possible.
You don't want to be waiting for confirmations on Core every time you spend your 101-bitcoins do you? So the first thing anyone with a brain will want to do is split their dual-chain-bitcoin. Do this by sending bitcoin to a new wallet on the 101 chain and using RBF to send it to a different wallet on Core.
The real problem comes when an address gets mixed coins- for example when you take an old-coin address (such as a paper wallet) and then send coins to it in a transaction that only works on one chain. Now you have two copies of that address, one on each chain, each with different ideas about how many coins are in the address and where they came from.
That is a small educational problem for the clueless. The real problem is if Bitcoin whales choose Core. Splitting the dual-chain-bitcoin is going to be a pain in the ass if Core is going very slow with all blocks being filled to the max. Therefore Core miners are likely to use another patch that will prioritize ALL transactions by fee no matter when they were sent (okay you could call this legalized "double spending" if you consider unconfirmed transactions to be "spent"). The 101 believers will want to sell their Core-bitcoins so they pay very high transaction fees on the Core chain. They will pay these fees with "Bitcoins" they have already spent on the 101 chain so this will not be expensive if Core quickly dies as they believe it will. Then Theymos, etc, sell their 101-bitcoins and buy Core-bitcoins. Then more miners go back to Core because it becomes more profitable (even if they want to be paid in 101-bitcoins). We have observed how far the price of Bitcoin can fall when it is one currency and most of the bitcoin has hardly moved. Who is going to buy all Theymos' and Satoshi's 101-bitcoins? Bitstamp? BitPay? CORE MINERS?!?!? Can they even afford to do so? Miners may have to mine both chains just to pay their bills. Then 101 "investors" may have big problem. You could make a poll of Bitcoin holders and ask when they might buy/sell 101-bitcoins or Core-bitcoins, but just like the miner "votes" this isn't any kind of binding commitment. A well-funded Ethereum prediction market would be a very good way to predict the outcome of this battle, especially after the decentralized Bitcoin exchange Dapp has had its "security audit". Notice that Satoshi will soon have a third chain they can buy into without identifying themselves or trusting an exchange. She could also bet on this prediction market. If she is lucky, someone will write an exchange Dapp to allow separate trading of Core-bitcoins, 101-bitcoins, and dual-chain-bitcoins. Bitcoin/ASIC owners would be wise to make sure this Dapp will be available. If Satoshi's only way out of 101 or Core, is to trade them for Ether or Dogecoin, this bitcoin's price may fall through the floor and many sha256 miners could go out of business.
Why is Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell u/nullc trying to pretend AXA isn't one of the top 5 "companies that control the world"? AXA relies on debt & derivatives to pretend it's not bankrupt. Million-dollar Bitcoin would destroy AXA's phony balance sheet. How much is AXA paying Greg to cripple Bitcoin?
Typical semantics games and hair-splitting and bullshitting from Greg. But I guess we shouldn't expect too much honesty or even understanding from someone like Greg who thinks that miners don't control Bitcoin. AXA-owned Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell u/nullc doesn't understand how Bitcoin mining works
Mining is how you vote for rule changes. Greg's comments on BU revealed he has no idea how Bitcoin works. He thought "honest" meant "plays by Core rules." [But] there is no "honesty" involved. There is only the assumption that the majority of miners are INTELLIGENTLY PROFIT-SEEKING. - ForkiusMaximus
Adam Back & Greg Maxwell are experts in mathematics and engineering, but not in markets and economics. They should not be in charge of "central planning" for things like "max blocksize". They're desperately attempting to prevent the market from deciding on this. But it will, despite their efforts.
Gregory Maxwell nullc has evidently never heard of terms like "the 1%", "TPTB", "oligarchy", or "plutocracy", revealing a childlike naïveté when he says: "‘Majority sets the rules regardless of what some minority thinks’ is the governing principle behind the fiats of major democracies."
People are starting to realize how toxic Gregory Maxwell is to Bitcoin, saying there are plenty of other coders who could do crypto and networking, and "he drives away more talent than he can attract." Plus, he has a 10-year record of damaging open-source projects, going back to Wikipedia in 2006.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4klqtg/people_are_starting_to_realize_how_toxic_gregory/ So here we have Greg this week, desperately engaging in his usual little "semantics" games - claiming that AXA isn't technically a bank - when the real point is that: AXA is clearly one of the most powerful fiat finance firms in the world. Maybe when he's talking about the hairball of C++ spaghetti code that him and his fellow devs at Core/Blockstream are slowing turning their version of Bitcoin's codebase into... in that arcane (and increasingly irrelevant :) area maybe he still can dazzle some people with his usual meaningless technically correct but essentially erroneous bullshit. But when it comes to finance and economics, Greg is in way over his head - and in those areas, he can't bullshit anyone. In fact, pretty much everything Greg ever says about finance or economics or banks is simply wrong. He thinks he's proved some point by claiming that AXA isn't technically a bank. But AXA is far worse than a mere "bank" or a mere "French multinational insurance company". AXA is one of the top-five "companies that control the world" - and now (some people think) AXA is in charge of paying for Bitcoin "development". A recent infographic published in the German Magazine "Die Zeit" showed that AXA is indeed the second-most-connected finance company in the world - right at the rotten "core" of the "fantasy fiat" financial system that runs our world today.
Who owns the world? (1) Barclays, (2) AXA, (3) State Street Bank. (Infographic in German - but you can understand it without knowing much German: "Wem gehört die Welt?" = "Who owns the world?") AXA is the #2 company with the most economic poweconnections in the world. And AXA owns Blockstream.
Blockstream is now controlled by the Bilderberg Group - seriously! AXA Strategic Ventures, co-lead investor for Blockstream's $55 million financing round, is the investment arm of French insurance giant AXA Group - whose CEO Henri de Castries has been chairman of the Bilderberg Group since 2012.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/47zfzt/blockstream_is_now_controlled_by_the_bilderberg/ So, let's get a few things straight here. "AXA" might not be a household name to many people. And Greg was "technically right" when he denied that AXA is a "bank" (which is basically the only kind of "right" that Greg ever is these days: "technically" :-) But AXA is one of the most powerful finance companies in the world. AXA was started as a French insurance company. And now it's a French multinational insurance company. But if you study up a bit on AXA, you'll see that they're not just any old "insurance" company. AXA has their fingers in just about everything around the world - including a certain team of toxic Bitcoin devs who are radically trying to change Bitcoin:
And ever since AXA started throwing tens of millions of dollars in filthy fantasy fiat at a certain toxic dev named Gregory Maxwell, CTO of Blockstream, suddenly he started saying that we can't have nice things like the gradually increasing blocksizes (and gradually increasing Bitcoin prices - which fortunately tend to increase proportional to the square of the blocksize because of Metcalfe's law :-) which were some of the main reasons most of us invested in Bitcoin in the first place. My, my, my - how some people have changed!
Greg Maxwell used to have intelligent, nuanced opinions about "max blocksize", until he started getting paid by AXA, whose CEO is head of the Bilderberg Group - the legacy financial elite which Bitcoin aims to disintermediate. Greg always refuses to address this massive conflict of interest. Why?
Previously, Greg Maxwell u/nullc (CTO of Blockstream), Adam Back u/adam3us (CEO of Blockstream), and u/theymos (owner of r\bitcoin) all said that bigger blocks would be fine. Now they prefer to risk splitting the community & the network, instead of upgrading to bigger blocks. What happened to them?
AXA would be exposed as bankrupt in a world dominated by a "counterparty-free" asset class like Bitcoin.
AXA pays Greg's salary - and Greg is one of the major forces who has been actively attempting to block Bitcoin's on-chain scaling - and there's no way getting around the fact that artificially small blocksizes do lead to artificially low prices.
AXA kinda reminds me of AIG If anyone here was paying attention when the cracks first started showing in the world fiat finance system around 2008, you may recall the name of another mega-insurance company, that was also one of the most connected finance companies in the world: AIG.
Falling Giant: A Case Study Of AIG What was once the unthinkable occurred on September 16, 2008. On that date, the federal government gave the American International Group - better known as AIG (NYSE:AIG) - a bailout of $85 billion. In exchange, the U.S. government received nearly 80% of the firm's equity. For decades, AIG was the world's biggest insurer, a company known around the world for providing protection for individuals, companies and others. But in September, the company would have gone under if it were not for government assistance.
Bernanke did say he believed an AIG failure would be "catastrophic," and that the heavy use of derivatives made the AIG problem potentially more explosive. An AIG failure, thanks to the firm's size and its vast web of trading partners, "would have triggered an intensification of the general run on international banking institutions," Bernanke said.
http://fortune.com/2010/09/02/why-the-fed-saved-aig-and-not-lehman/ Just like AIG, AXA is a "systemically important" finance company - one of the biggest insurance companies in the world. And (like all major banks and insurance firms), AXA is drowning in worthless debt and bets (derivatives). Most of AXA's balance sheet would go up in a puff of smoke if they actually did "mark-to-market" (ie, if they actually factored in the probability of the counterparties of their debts and bets actually coming through and paying AXA the full amount it says on the pretty little spreadsheets on everyone's computer screens). In other words: Like most giant banks and insurers, AXA has mainly debt and bets. They rely on counterparties to pay them - maybe, someday, if the whole system doesn't go tits-up by then. In other words: Like most giant banks and insurers, AXA does not hold the "private keys" to their so-called wealth :-) So, like most giant multinational banks and insurers who spend all their time playing with debts and bets, AXA has been teetering on the edge of the abyss since 2008 - held together by chewing gum and paper clips and the miracle of Quantitative Easing - and also by all the clever accounting tricks that instantly become possible when money can go from being a gleam in a banker's eye to a pixel on a screen with just a few keystrokes - that wonderful world of "fantasy fiat" where central bankers ninja-mine billions of dollars in worthless paper and pixels into existence every month - and then for some reason every other month they have to hold a special "emergency central bankers meeting" to deal with the latest financial crisis du jour which "nobody could have seen coming". AIG back in 2008 - much like AXA today - was another "systemically important" worldwide mega-insurance giant - with most of its net worth merely a pure fantasy on a spreadsheet and in a four-color annual report - glossing over the ugly reality that it's all based on toxic debts and derivatives which will never ever be paid off. Mega-banks Mega-insurers like AXA are addicted to the never-ending "fantasy fiat" being injected into the casino of musical chairs involving bets upon bets upon bets upon bets upon bets - counterparty against counterparty against counterparty against counterparty - going 'round and 'round on the big beautiful carroussel where everyone is waiting on the next guy to pay up - and meanwhile everyone's cooking their books and sweeping their losses "under the rug", offshore or onto the taxpayers or into special-purpose vehicles - while the central banks keep printing up a trillion more here and a trillion more there in worthless debt-backed paper and pixels - while entire nations slowly sink into the toxic financial sludge of ever-increasing upayable debt and lower productivity and higher inflation, dragging down everyone's economies, enslaving everyone to increasing worktime and decreasing paychecks and unaffordable healthcare and education, corrupting our institutions and our leaders, distorting our investment and "capital allocation" decisions, inflating housing and healthcare and education beyond everyone's reach - and sending people off to die in endless wars to prop up the deadly failing Saudi-American oil-for-arms Petrodollar ninja-mined currency cartel. In 2008, when the multinational insurance company AIG (along with their fellow gambling buddies at the multinational investment banks Bear Stearns and Lehmans) almost went down the drain due to all their toxic gambling debts, they also almost took the rest of the world with them. And that's when the "core" dev team working for the miners central banks (the Fed, ECB, BoE, BoJ - who all report to the "central bank of central banks" BIS in Basel) - started cranking up their mining rigs printing presses and keyboards and pixels to the max, unilaterally manipulating the "issuance schedule" of their shitcoins and flooding the world with tens of trillions in their worthless phoney fiat to save their sorry asses after all their toxic debts and bad bets. AXA is at the very rotten "core" of this system - like AIG, a "systemically important" (ie, "too big to fail") mega-gigantic multinational insurance company - a fantasy fiat finance firm quietly sitting at the rotten core of our current corrupt financial system, basically impacting everything and everybody on this planet. The "masters of the universe" from AXA are the people who go to Davos every year wining and dining on lobster and champagne - part of that elite circle that prints up endless money which they hand out to their friends while they continue to enslave everyone else - and then of course they always turn around and tell us we can't have nice things like roads and schools and healthcare because "austerity". (But somehow we always can have plenty of wars and prisons and climate change and terrorism because for some weird reason our "leaders" seem to love creating disasters.) The smart people at AXA are probably all having nightmares - and the smart people at all the other companies in that circle of "too-big-to-fail" "fantasy fiat finance firms" are probably also having nightmares - about the following very possible scenario: If Bitcoin succeeds, debt-and-derivatives-dependent financial "giants" like AXA will probably be exposed as having been bankrupt this entire time. All their debts and bets will be exposed as not being worth the paper and pixels they were printed on - and at that point, in a cryptocurrency world, the only real money in the world will be "counterparty-free" assets ie cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin - where all you need to hold is your own private keys - and you're not dependent on the next deadbeat debt-ridden fiat slave down the line coughing up to pay you. Some of those people at AXA and the rest of that mafia are probably quietly buying - sad that they missed out when Bitcoin was only $10 or $100 - but happy they can still get it for $1000 while Blockstream continues to suppress the price - and who knows, what the hell, they might as well throw some of that juicy "banker's bonus" into Bitcoin now just in case it really does go to $1 million a coin someday - which it could easily do with just 32MB blocks, and no modifications to the code (ie, no SegWit, no BU, no nuthin', just a slowly growing blocksize supporting a price growing roughly proportional to the square of the blocksize - like Bitcoin always actually did before the economically illiterate devs at Blockstream imposed their centrally planned blocksize on our previously decentralized system). Meanwhile, other people at AXA and other major finance firms might be taking a different tack: happy to see all the disinfo and discord being sown among the Bitcoin community like they've been doing since they were founded in late 2014 - buying out all the devs, dumbing down the community to the point where now even the CTO of Blockstream Greg Mawxell gets the whitepaper totally backwards. Maybe Core/Blockstream's failure-to-scale is a feature not a bug - for companies like AXA. After all, AXA - like most of the major banks in the Europe and the US - are now basically totally dependent on debt and derivatives to pretend they're not already bankrupt. Maybe Blockstream's dead-end road-map (written up by none other than Greg Maxwell), which has been slowly strangling Bitcoin for over two years now - and which could ultimately destroy Bitcoin via the poison pill of Core/Blockstream's SegWit trojan horse - maybe all this never-ending history of obstrution and foot-dragging and lying and failure from Blockstream is actually a feature and not a bug, as far as AXA and their banking buddies are concerned.
The insurance company with the biggest exposure to the 1.2 quadrillion dollar (ie, 1200 TRILLION dollar) derivatives casino is AXA. Yeah, that AXA, the company whose CEO is head of the Bilderberg Group, and whose "venture capital" arm bought out Bitcoin development by "investing" in Blockstream.
If Bitcoin becomes a major currency, then tens of trillions of dollars on the "legacy ledger of fantasy fiat" will evaporate, destroying AXA, whose CEO is head of the Bilderbergers. This is the real reason why AXA bought Blockstream: to artificially suppress Bitcoin volume and price with 1MB blocks.
This trader's price & volume graph / model predicted that we should be over $10,000 USD/BTC by now. The model broke in late 2014 - when AXA-funded Blockstream was founded, and started spreading propaganda and crippleware, centrally imposing artificially tiny blocksize to suppress the volume & price.
"I'm angry about AXA scraping some counterfeit money out of their fraudulent empire to pay autistic lunatics millions of dollars to stall the biggest sociotechnological phenomenon since the internet and then blame me and people like me for being upset about it." ~ u/dresden_k
Bitcoin can go to 10,000 USD with 4 MB blocks, so it will go to 10,000 USD with 4 MB blocks. All the censorship & shilling on r\bitcoin & fantasy fiat from AXA can't stop that. BitcoinCORE might STALL at 1,000 USD and 1 MB blocks, but BITCOIN will SCALE to 10,000 USD and 4 MB blocks - and beyond
AXA/Blockstream are suppressing Bitcoin price at 1000 bits = 1 USD. If 1 bit = 1 USD, then Bitcoin's market cap would be 15 trillion USD - close to the 82 trillion USD of "money" in the world. With Bitcoin Unlimited, we can get to 1 bit = 1 USD on-chain with 32MB blocksize ("Million-Dollar Bitcoin")
Greg Maxwell has now publicly confessed that he is engaging in deliberate market manipulation to artificially suppress Bitcoin adoption and price. He could be doing this so that he and his associates can continue to accumulate while the price is still low (1 BTC = $570, ie 1 USD can buy 1750 "bits")
Why did Blockstream CTO u/nullc Greg Maxwell risk being exposed as a fraud, by lying about basic math? He tried to convince people that Bitcoin does not obey Metcalfe's Law (claiming that Bitcoin price & volume are not correlated, when they obviously are). Why is this lie so precious to him?
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/57dsgz/why_did_blockstream_cto_unullc_greg_maxwell_risk/ I don't know how a so-called Bitcoin dev can sleep at night knowing he's getting paid by fucking AXA - a company that would probably go bankrupt if Bitcoin becomes a major world currency. Greg must have to go through some pretty complicated mental gymastics to justify in his mind what everyone else can see: he is a fucking sellout to one of the biggest fiat finance firms in the world - he's getting paid by (and defending) a company which would probably go bankrupt if Bitcoin ever achieved multi-trillion dollar market cap. Greg is literally getting paid by the second-most-connected "systemically important" (ie, "too big to fail") finance firm in the world - which will probably go bankrupt if Bitcoin were ever to assume its rightful place as a major currency with total market cap measured in the tens of trillions of dollars, destroying most of the toxic sludge of debt and derivatives keeping a bank financial giant like AXA afloat. And it may at first sound batshit crazy (until You Do The Math), but Bitcoin actually really could go to one-million-dollars-a-coin in the next 8 years or so - without SegWit or BU or anything else - simply by continuing with Satoshi's original 32MB built-in blocksize limit and continuing to let miners keep blocks as small as possible to satisfy demand while avoiding orphans - a power which they've had this whole friggin' time and which they've been managing very well thank you.
Bitcoin Original: Reinstate Satoshi's original 32MB max blocksize. If actual blocks grow 54% per year (and price grows 1.542 = 2.37x per year - Metcalfe's Law), then in 8 years we'd have 32MB blocks, 100 txns/sec, 1 BTC = 1 million USD - 100% on-chain P2P cash, without SegWit/Lightning or Unlimited
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5uljaf/bitcoin_original_reinstate_satoshis_original_32mb/ Meanwhile Greg continues to work for Blockstream which is getting tens of millions of dollars from a company which would go bankrupt if Bitcoin were to actually scale on-chain to 32MB blocks and 1 million dollars per coin without all of Greg's meddling. So Greg continues to get paid by AXA, spreading his ignorance about economics and his lies about Bitcoin on these forums. In the end, who knows what Greg's motivations are, or AXA's motivations are. But one thing we do know is this: Satoshi didn't put Greg Maxwell or AXA in charge of deciding the blocksize. The tricky part to understand about "one CPU, one vote" is that it does not mean there is some "pre-existing set of rules" which the miners somehow "enforce" (despite all the times when you hear some Core idiot using words like "consensus layer" or "enforcing the rules"). The tricky part about really understanding Bitcoin is this: Hashpower doesn't just enforce the rules - hashpower makes the rules. And if you think about it, this makes sense. It's the only way Bitcoin actually could be decentralized. It's kinda subtle - and it might be hard for someone to understand if they've been a slave to centralized authorities their whole life - but when we say that Bitcoin is "decentralized" then what it means is: We all make the rules. Because if hashpower doesn't make the rules - then you'd be right back where you started from, with some idiot like Greg Maxwell "making the rules" - or some corrupt too-big-to-fail bank debt-and-derivative-backed "fantasy fiat financial firm" like AXA making the rules - by buying out a dev team and telling us that that dev team "makes the rules". But fortunately, Greg's opinions and ignorance and lies don't matter anymore. Miners are waking up to the fact that they've always controlled the blocksize - and they always will control the blocksize - and there isn't a single goddamn thing Greg Maxwell or Blockstream or AXA can do to stop them from changing it - whether the miners end up using BU or Classic or BitcoinEC or they patch the code themselves.
The debate is not "SHOULD THE BLOCKSIZE BE 1MB VERSUS 1.7MB?". The debate is: "WHO SHOULD DECIDE THE BLOCKSIZE?" (1) Should an obsolete temporary anti-spam hack freeze blocks at 1MB? (2) Should a centralized dev team soft-fork the blocksize to 1.7MB? (3) OR SHOULD THE MARKET DECIDE THE BLOCKSIZE?
Core/Blockstream are now in the Kübler-Ross "Bargaining" phase - talking about "compromise". Sorry, but markets don't do "compromise". Markets do COMPETITION. Markets do winner-takes-all. The whitepaper doesn't talk about "compromise" - it says that 51% of the hashpower determines WHAT IS BITCOIN.
Clearing up Some Widespread Confusions about BU Core deliberately provides software with a blocksize policy pre-baked in. The ONLY thing BU-style software changes is that baking in. It refuses to bundle controversial blocksize policy in with the rest of the code it is offering. It unties the blocksize settings from the dev teams, so that you don't have to shop for both as a packaged unit. The idea is that you can now have Core software security without having to submit to Core blocksize policy. Running Core is like buying a Sony TV that only lets you watch Fox, because the other channels are locked away and you have to know how to solder a circuit board to see them. To change the channel, you as a layman would have to switch to a different TV made by some other manufacturer, who you may not think makes as reliable of TVs. This is because Sony believes people should only ever watch Fox "because there are dangerous channels out there" or "because since everyone needs to watch the same channel, it is our job to decide what that channel is." So the community is stuck with either watching Fox on their nice, reliable Sony TVs, or switching to all watching ABC on some more questionable TVs made by some new maker (like, in 2015 the XT team was the new maker and BIP101 was ABC). BU (and now Classic and BitcoinEC) shatters that whole bizarre paradigm. BU is a TV that lets you tune to any channel you want, at your own risk. The community is free to converge on any channel it wants to, and since everyone in this analogy wants to watch the same channel they will coordinate to find one.
Adjustable blocksize cap (ABC) is dangerous? The blocksize cap has always been user-adjustable. Core just has a really shitty inferface for it. What does it tell you that Core and its supporters are up in arms about a change that merely makes something more convenient for users and couldn't be prevented from happening anyway? Attacking the adjustable blocksize feature in BU and Classic as "dangerous" is a kind of trap, as it is an implicit admission that Bitcoin was being protected only by a small barrier of inconvenience, and a completely temporary one at that. If this was such a "danger" or such a vector for an "attack," how come we never heard about it before? Even if we accept the improbable premise that inconvenience is the great bastion holding Bitcoin together and the paternalistic premise that stakeholders need to be fed consensus using a spoon of inconvenience, we still must ask, who shall do the spoonfeeding? Core accepts these two amazing premises and further declares that Core alone shall be allowed to do the spoonfeeding. Or rather, if you really want to you can be spoonfed by other implementation clients like libbitcoin and btcd as long as they are all feeding you the same stances on controversial consensus settings as Core does. It is high time the community see central planning and abuse of power for what it is, and reject both:
Throw off central planning by removing petty "inconvenience walls" (such as baked-in, dev-recommended blocksize caps) that interfere with stakeholders coordinating choices amongst themselves on controversial matters ...
Make such abuse of power impossible by encouraging many competing implementations to grow and blossom
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/617gf9/adjustable_blocksize_cap_abc_is_dangerous_the/ So it's time for Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell u/nullc to get over his delusions of grandeur - and to admit he's just another dev, with just another opinion. He also needs to look in the mirror and search his soul and confront the sad reality that he's basically turned into a sellout working for a shitty startup getting paid by the 5th (or 4th or 2nd) "most connected", "systemically important", "too-big-to-fail", debt-and-derivative-dependent multinational bank mega-insurance giant in the world AXA - a major fiat firm firm which is terrified of going bankrupt just like that other mega-insurnace firm AIG already almost did before the Fed rescued them in 2008 - a fiat finance firm which is probably very conflicted about Bitcoin, at the very least. Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell is getting paid by the most systemically important bank mega-insurance giant in the world, sitting at the rotten "core" of the our civilization's corrupt, dying fiat cartel. Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell is getting paid by a mega-bank mega-insurance company that will probably go bankrupt if and when Bitcoin ever gets a multi-trillion dollar market cap, which it can easily do with just 32MB blocks and no code changes at all from clueless meddling devs like him.
Andreas Antonopoulos, Eric Voorhees, Bitgo, 730 nodes after a few days and QuickBT.com have all support SegWit. They must have all been bribed by (North) Korea/BorgStream (AKA BS = Bull Sh*t)
Either that, or just maybe, perhaps there is a tiny chance that fixing the malleability and quadratic hashing bugs, with a 75% capacity increase, might actually, not be a terrible idea. No wait, that’s stupid!! North Corea (Kim Jong-un haha), Li Ka-shing & AXA (The Bilderberg Group), must be bribing everyone. They are more powerful than we thought. We might be in trouble guys.
If I interpret BIP100 correctly, the top and bottom 20% of votes are discarded, and the minimum is chosen. Doesn't this mean that a miner with 21% of the hashing power can drop the block size to the minimum that can be specified by the votes, i.e. 1B? If the block size is calculated on entire blocks, wouldn't this permanently destroy Bitcoin unless recovered with a hard fork? Now, of course, one could argue that a miner would not want to do that since it would destroy the value of his mining equipment, but I think that's a weak argument. A year worth of Bitcoin mining is worth
which is roughly $300 million. eBay bought PayPal for five times this amount in 2002, so this is not an unrealistically large amount of money. If you can't amortize your equipment over more than a year, the price of mining will surely be higher than that, but not that much higher, I suspect (since miners do become obsolete quite fast anyways) - and besides that, the mining still pays for itself, at least before the attack becomes obvious, if you sell the coins immediately. Assuming a block size limit of 1 MB, and a voting cycle of 3 months (the BIP doesn't seem to specify it, but it can be implied from the initial voting cycle), 1 year of mining would "only" allow you to drop the block size four times, e.g. from 1 MB to 500 KB, 250 KB, 125 KB, and finally 62.5 KB. That wouldn't irreversibly destroy Bitcoin on a technical level, but probably make it unaffordable to transact on it and destroy it on an economic level. Did I miss something, or should we consider some changes to BIP100 to prevent this (e.g. using the median instead of the 20th percentile)? Note: I'm in support of a block size increase, be it through BIP100, BIP101, or otherwise. My aim is to help fix an issue if one exists, understand why if it isn't an issue, but not to delay or prevent the implementation of one of these BIPs. Edit: Possible solution here - a majority of miners can always declare a certain size unacceptable and start treating all blocks that vote beyond the arbitrarily chosen limits as invalid (soft fork).
Could we please make a stronger attempt to bridge this divide in the community and get more insight into the thought processes of the Core Developers?
I'm making this post in what may be a futile attempt to bridge this ever widening gap in the Bitcoin community. This is mostly going to be from the perspective of a small-time investor, not a technical guy at all. I may not be the most qualified person to make this post, but I'd like to see more posts like this so that it may be possible for us to move past this current quagmire as a more unified community. I'm posting in this subreddit even under the fear that it may get removed because I want this to be seen by more than just the people that have been pushed out of this community. Having said that, I think the first thing that we should acknowledge is that an extremely significant portion of the Bitcoin community HATE the core developers. I know that many don't care that this happens to be true, but this really should be cause for alarm. I'll spend most of this post addressing the reasons I think this is the case, then perhaps in the comments others can chime in, and we can hear from the Core developers as well. I'd like to see more polls done within the community so that we can find a better sense of the thoughts of everybody. I'm not sure where the majority of support lies but I think we need to make a better effort to address the concerns of everybody, so that we can move forward as one, stronger unit. Every one of us have invested into Bitcoin in some way, and collectively, we are what make Bitcoin worth $414 dollars. If a significant portion of us get fed up and leave, we can expect price drop, which is bad for everybody. (Unless of course you have decided to short Bitcoin.) But the people that leave are probably not going to leave Crypto altogether. Personally, I've started putting more and more of my money into alt-coins that seem better equipped to fulfill the potential which Bitcoin may not be able to with the current development team. If enough of us decide that, it's possible that another coin could take over. While this is unlikely, I think it's undeniably true that many have liquidated their Bitcoin holdings because this loss of faith in developers, and I think there are far more people that would like to invest, but think that Bitcoin is too risky with its current development team. To that end, let's restore confidence in the current team by delving into their thought processes. I think everything unfortunately comes back to the blocksize debate. It's exhausting, but it needs to come to a conclusion if we want more people to invest in Bitcoin. And I think we all want as many people to invest in Bitcoin as possible.
Core Developers don't seem to have any urgency to get this block size thing resolved. I think most people see this as the number one problem with bitcoin right now, and would like to see is all effort being put into a permanent solution before we see the developers work on less critical things. A lot of talk has been thrown around about a temporary, small increase to buy more time, but many want this blocksize issue to be in Bitcoin's rear-view mirror. The reason being that as long as this uncertainty exists, there are a lot of investors that simply won't get into bitcoin, and to foster the network effect, we need to get as many people in as soon as possible. We have a halving coming up shortly, which brings with it a potential price increase, and I for one would like to see how much it can go up if we don't have this blocksize cloud hanging over investors. So the question for Core Developers is, how much do you feel the same? How committed are you to putting out a permanent solution as quickly as is safe?(This, by the way, is why BIP101 is so appealing to so many people. It may not be the best solution, but it is A solution. One that has been tested, and can resolve this debate once and for all.)
The Core Developers don't seem to be willing to compromise much. It's great that we had those scaling Bitcoin conferences, but what did we get out of them? When the major exchanges came out this summer in support of BIP101, the Core developers quickly issued a letter saying that they've heard our concerns, and asked us to wait until the Scaling Bitcoin conferences were over. Many were hoping for a clear path forward and a clear alternative to BIP101 upon the conclusion of the second one, but the second one has concluded and we do not have that. We have a lot of promising ideas, but nothing that would be an alternative to BIP101. (That is, something that would conclude this block size debate once and for all.) We don't even have a timeline or a plan for one. It seems to me that a golden opportunity was missed to compromise on BIP101. I didn't see anything come out of the conference that would last us more than a couple of years. BIP101 supporters want a clear path forward and they still do not have that from Core. So the questions is, how willing are you to compromise with the people that want BIP101? Would you be willing to compromise on a version of BIP101 that started at 4MB, or doubled slower?
The Core developers aren't very good at communicating with their detractors. I think this is in part because they have little interest in communicating with people that don't understand the technical side of things. There is a sense that they see themselves above everybody else, and that they do not answer to the people that give their project value. Contrast this with the simple, thorough, and easy-to-understand, blog posts of Gavin and Mike. Gavin made a series of blog posts addressing every single one of Core developers concerns about raising the block size. As a casual investor, I really get the sense that he knows what he's talking about, and I trust him to lead us forward. The core developers didn't really do an adequate job explaining to us why that trust would be misplaced, and didn't adequately address his points about raising the block size. So the question is, will Core Developers make a better effort to communicate with us, and make us feel that our concerns are being heard? (This would of course include publicly denouncing the censorship which runs through some of the main Bitcoin channels, instead of pretending like it doesn't exist, or that it's not a problem.)
It feels like core developers have framed the argument about raising the block size in a bad way. They have presented this as a matter of centralization vs. decentralization. Could you help us better understand why supporting BIP101 is necessarily synonymous with centralization, and why that would be a bad thing. It seems to me that the biggest concern is that if the block size gets too high, then it will be too cost prohibitive for an individual to run a full node, and it may lead to transactions not being broadcast because those transactions go against the interests of the small number of node operators that can afford to run them. (If I understand the argument correctly.) However, I'm not really too concerned about it. It seems that no matter how big Bitcoin gets, there will always be a significant number of early adopters that care about Bitcoin's decentralization, and will be able to afford to run a full node. This makes some sense, right? If we're maxing out 8GB blocks, it's difficult to imagine that bitcoin is going to continue to be worth $414 dollars. Most likely they will be worth tens of thousands of dollars, and given how much more affordable memory, disc space, and bandwidth are each and every year, I have a really hard time imagining a scenario where a full node would be so costly to operate that they there wouldn't still be plenty that are are willing to broadcast any valid transaction. So where am I wrong here? Why should I be more concerned about this than I am? (Also, when it comes to centralization, why is it okay for the future of Bitcoin to rely on Blockstream's ability to put out a functional Lightning network? If we had to rely on such a network to continue to make transactions affordably, wouldn't that be centralization as well?)
It feels like the core developers are abandoning some of the potential that Bitcoin has to offer. When I was first looking into Bitcoin, I was told about all the potential the the blockchain could offer. This is one of the reasons I invested. We could use bitcoin for normal peer-to-peer financial transactions, but also micropayments, smart contracts, remittances, a distributed public ledger, colored coins, etc. It seems like if we want our currency to have the most possible value, shouldn't we try to do everything in our power to maximizes it's potential uses? Shouldn't we be inviting people to use our blockchain to use as they please instead of pushing them toward private blockchains? Do we still want Bitcoin to remain peer-to-peer? There seems to be a debate over whether Bitcoin should be merely a settlement layer. Can't it be both? Wouldn't it be more useful as both? Wouldn't that drive more people to invest?
This is getting long, and I know this isn't an exhaustive list of complaints, but I think it hits at the biggest ones. I also realize I may be showing my ignorance here as well, so please do correct any misunderstandings. I have a significant portion of my total wealth tied up in this currency, and I would like to be reassured that this remains a good investment with Core developers in charge. I believe that they do want what's best for Bitcoin, but their words and actions have been confusing, and fostering a greater divide in the community. It certainly feels like they aren't too concerned about Bitcoin as an investment for a lot of people, and I'd like to see that changed. Thank you for reading all this, and thank you for your thoughts and opinions. Lets keep this friendly, even if it ends up getting sorted by most controversial.
Step-by-step instructions for how to rent hashing power and point it at pools mining XT blocks
Hi friends - These are step-by-step instructions for how to rent hashing power and point it at a pool that is working on mining XT blocks. You can think of this as an alternative to the big block bounty and block vote ideas; they're all ways of showing support for XT, though I personally think this approach is more interesting. It also makes for an actual increase in the XT-supporting hashing power on the network. If you're super-lucky, you may even end up with more bitcoin than when you started! ;) I am fairly new to this myself, so I would be very grateful to any knowledgeable people who can point out mistakes in these steps or suggest ways that they can otherwise be improved. 1) Go to NiceHash 2) Click 'Register' 3) Enter (and then confirm) your email address. You'll be prompted to create a password. 4) Go to Account > Wallet. 5) Create a 'Deposit BTC address'. Once this address exists, you can send bitcoin to it. These are the funds you'll use to rent the hashing power. The funds you send will show up as 'Pending' until the transaction is confirmed and a few blocks deep in the blockchain. 6) While you wait for the funds confirmation, you can set up your target pool. To do this, go to Account > Manage my pools. 7) In the 'Add new pool' box, you will need 4 pieces of information: a. The IP address or hostname of the pool b. The port number c. Your username d. Your password
a/b: The addresses and port numbers for the currently active XT pools can be found here
c: Your username is actually your own personal bitcoin address. This is where your share of the reward will be sent when your pool finds finds a block.
d: This can be anything you want.
Once you've entered those four pieces of information, you can click the 'Pool verificator' link and NiceHash will do a quick handshake with the pool to make sure everything checks out. If that goes well, click 'Add' to save the pool. 8) Once your funds have moved over to the 'Confirmed' box, you're ready to rock. Go to 'Orders'. This page shows the list of currently active hashing rental contracts. 9) In the Algorithm drop-down on the right, select 'SHA256' (this is the hashing algorithm that bitcoin uses). 10) To create a new order, click 'Standard' or 'Fixed' (What's the difference?). Again, you'll need to provide 4 pieces of information:
a. Select your pool from the dropdown. This will be the one you created in step 7.
b. Enter a price. This is how much you're willing to pay per "unit" for hashing power. This will be locked if you selected 'Fixed.' If you picked Standard, you can probably just leave the default since it will be set to the lowest rate that is currently viable.
c. Specify how much hashing power you want to buy (probably a good idea to start with the minimum 5 TH/s on your first go-around).
d. Specify how much you want to spend on this order. The more you spend, the longer the contract will run, but obviously this number has to be lower than the amount of confirmed funds in your wallet.
11) Click Create. That's it! You're helping to move the revolution forward! I hope this has been helpful. :)
Some research on BIP101 starting with 4MB instead of 8MB (Very promising)
$ per PB
UL per Block
Date = Self explanatory.
BSL = Block Size Limit.
BS = Block Size.
TPS = Transactions per second.
MD = Monthly Data (The amount of upstream and downstream data used by the node per month)
BcS = Blockchain Size (Total size of the blockchain).
$ per PB = $USD per Petabyte of HDD storage (SSD price is roughly 10x more).
HDD Total = $USD cost of the storage used by the blockchain.
ABDL = Average available bandwidth for download.
ABUL = Average available bandwidth for upload.
%DL = Percentage of total download bandwidth being used by the node from the available download bandwidth.
%UL = Percentage of total upload bandwidth being used by the node from the available upload bandwidth.
UL per Block = Total upload data per block when connected to 8 peers.
PT = Propagation time to propagate to 8 peers.
NNLD = New node download time in days when using 50% bandwidth (the amount of time it would take a user to download the entire blockchain from scratch).
. This the data for BIP101 with a slight change and fast propagating blocks. The only change is to add another two years to the schedule and start at a 4MB limit instead of 8MB. The reason I did this is that; based on the rate of change of HDD/SSD price and average available download and upload speeds, starting at 4MB should be enough to keep block propagation under 2 seconds through the entire schedule. This should be enough to mitigate any centralisation pressures. A key requirement of this data is that full blocks are not uploaded to each peer, but rather just the necessary information. According to Mike Hearn this would currently mean 70KB upstream data per peer. I have used this as a basis for the data. . KEY INFORMATION
Storage cost for the blockchain hit a peak of $4.59 for a HDD and $45.90 for an SSD in the year 2020 and steadily go down from there. I would say it is safe to say that this is a negligible cost for a node. [CHART]()
Percentage of download and upload bandwidth stay at around roughly 0.23% and 3% respectively. I think it is safe to say that this is a negligible amount for a node. It should be noted that for fast propagation 100% of the bandwidth will need to be used but only for 2 seconds out of every (average) 10 minutes.
Propagation time is kept under 2 seconds for the duration of the schedule. It would be great to get some data on how 'good' 2 seconds is. To me this would seem to be sufficient.
The time to download the entire blockchain reaches a max of roughly 5 days when using 50% of the available bandwidth. While this is not ideal it is also not terrible. People wait a week to get a new bank card and weeks for a new internet connection. I think under a week without having your internet bandwidth used up too badly is pretty reasonable.
Transactions per second reaches Paypal average levels (115tps) during year 2022. TPS reaches Visa average levels (2000tps) during year 2030. TPS reaches (current) total global non-cash transaction levels of 12,357tps during year 2035. TPS reaches a max of 57,344tps with 8GB blocks in year 2040. With a growth rate of 7% per year 12,357tps reaches 67,067tps by 2040. This would mean that bitcoin would be able to handle almost 100% of the total global non-cash transactions.
. DATA REFERENCES
Storage cost I used conservative linear logarithmic trend. HDD costs have historically reduced by 10 times every 5 years. This has slowed in the last few years but this is likely to be attributed to the flooding in South East Asia and the transition to SSD technology. SSD costs have also followed this same trend of cost reducing 10 times every 5 years
Average download bandwidth I used a conservative linear logarithmic trend increases in average download bandwidth of doubling every two years.
Average upload bandwidth I also used a conservative linear logarithmic trend increases in average upload bandwidth of doubling every two years.
Dr Peter R. Rizun, managing editor of the first peer-reviewed cryptocurrency journal, is an important Bitcoin researcher. He has also been attacked and censored for months by Core / Blockstream / Theymos. Now, he has now been *suspended* (from *all* subreddits) by some Reddit admin(s). Why?
Dr. Peter R. Rizun is arguably one of the most serious, prominent, and promising new voices in Bitcoin research today. He not only launched the first scientific peer-reviewed cryptocurrency journal - he has also consistently provided high-quality, serious and insightful posts, papers and presentations on reddit (in writing, at conferences, and on YouTube) covering a wide array of important topics ranging from blocksize, scaling and decentralization to networking theory, economics, and fee markets - including:
It was of course probably to be expected that such an important emerging new Bitcoin researcher would be constantly harrassed, attacked and censored by the ancien régime of Core / Blockstream / Theymos. But now, the attacks have risen to a new level, where some Reddit admin(s) have suspended his account Peter__R. This means that now he can't post anywhere on reddit, and people can no longer see his reddit posts simply by clicking on his user name (although his posts - many of them massively upvoted with hundreds of upvotes - are of course still available individually, via the usual search box). Questions:
What Reddit admin(s) are behind this reddit-wide banishing of Peter__R?
What is their real agenda, and why are they aiding and abbeting the censorship imposed by Core / Blockstream / Theymos?
Don't they realize that in the end they will only harm reddit.com itself, by forcing the most important new Bitcoin researchers to publish their work elsewhere?
(Some have suggested that Peter__R may have forgotten to use 'np' instead of 'www' when linking to other posts on reddit - a common error which subs like /btc will conveniently catch for the poster, allowing the post to be fixed and resubmitted. If this indeed was the actual justification of the Reddit admin(s) for banning him reddit-wide, it seems like a silly technical "gotcha" - and one which could easily have been avoided if other subs would catch this error the same way /btc does. At any rate, it certainly seems counterproductive for reddit.com to ban such a prominent and serious Bitcoin contributor.)
Why is reddit.com willing to risk pushing serious discussion off the site, killing its reputation as a decent place to discuss Bitcoin?
Haven't the people attempting to silence him ever heard of the Streisand effect?
Below are some examples of the kinds of outstanding contributions made by Peter__R, which Core / Blockstream / Theymos (and apparently some Reddit admin(s)) have been desperately trying to suppress in the Bitcoin community. Peer-Reviewed Cryptocurrency Journal
In case anyone missed it, Peter__R hit the nail on the head with this: "The reason we can't agree on a compromise is because the choice is binary: the limit is either used as an anti-spam measure, or as a policy tool to control fees."
"It's because most of them are NOT Bitcoin experts--and I hope the community is finally starting to recognize that" -- Peter R on specialists vs. generalists and the aptitudes of Blockstream Core developers
It is time to usher in a new phase of Bitcoin development - based not on crypto & hashing & networking (that stuff's already done), but based on clever refactorings of datastructures in pursuit of massive and perhaps unlimited new forms of scaling
Peter__R on RBF: (1) Easier for scammers on Local Bitcoins (2) Merchants will be scammed, reluctant to accept Bitcoin (3) Extra work for payment processors (4) Could be the proverbial straw that broke Core's back, pushing people into XT, btcd, Unlimited and other clients that don't support RBF
"My response to Pieter Wuille on the Dev-List has once again been censored, perhaps because I spoke favourably of Bitcoin Unlimited and pointed out misunderstandings by Maxwell and Back...here it is for those who are interested" -- Peter R
There is now a clear economic majority against BIP101, when will you accept this?
The following constituencies have cleary rejected the excessive BIP101 plan. Please could you mention some benchmark metrics, which if achieved, you will admit that BIP101 has failed. That way we have something to aim for and we can then implement a moderate blocksize limit to prevent a potentially imminent capacity crisis.
Miners - Please review the blocksize vote in the block header. Or see http://xtnodes.com, which shows 99.8% of blocks mined against XT
Developers - Of the 5 core commitors, 80% do not support BIP101. In addition many full time Bitcoin developers, including employees of MIT media lab, where Gavin works, signed a letter urging us not to rush into BIP101
Experts - A highly regarded expert in the field, Nick Szabo, author of "shelling out the orgins of money" and "BitGold" likened BIP101 to a classic 51% attack. Adam Back, the inventor of Proof of Work and the only person mentioned in the text of the Bitcoin whitepaper is against BIP101 and called it a coup.
Scaling conference delegates - at least nine speakers in HK urged caution with respect to BIP101. One speaker spoke in favor, despite his data showing miners struggle with 8MB blocks, with up to 220 second download time due to the great firewall of China. The consensus in HK seemed to be towards SW, although some advocated a 2MB limit.
Compromise: start BIP101 at 4MB and agree to merge segregated witness ASAP.
Segregated witness (SW) can work relatively quickly. Removing signatures from the blockchain is an easy way to cut 60% of its size. SW isn't a solution right now, but there is far less in the way of SW working than lightning or sidechains. I see SW as a practical and quickly implementable solution for scaling that doesn't appear to modify the properties of the network in a meaningful way, or have any unanswered security or centralization concerns. It's simple and effective, a real "no brainier". Really great work. So... knowing this, what if we cut BIP101 to start at 4MB, but merge segregated witness asap? This makes China's mining community happy for years and years, but allows bitcoin to scale, and we still get a 60% efficiency in the near future. This allows the bitcoin network effect to kick back in, the price to rise, and we all win. Too simple? Maybe rename BIP101 to something else for political neutrality with the lower starting value and sing kumbaya? Thoughts?
Discussion: What metrics can be used to measure community sentiment?
I've been told that the opinions of those in /btc belong to a significant, yet vocal, minority of all bitcoin users. I've also been told that the bitcoin economic majority has already decided in favor of Core and the 1MB block + SegWit status quo. What metrics can we use to measure support? Node Count
Winner: Bitcoin Core, with 4,564 nodes. (85.37%)
Bitcoin Unlimited: 355 nodes. (6.64%)
Bitcoin Classic: 202 nodes. (3.78%)
Bitcore: 110 nodes. (2.06%)
Worth noting is that Bitcoin Core was at ~6,000 nodes in August 2015. Hashrate
Supports larger block size, in favor of a hard fork, prefers SegWit as a hard fork or outright opposes SegWit, and generally opposes the Bitcoin Core roadmap: /btc, forum.bitcoin.com, https://bitco.in
Next, what are the pros and cons of each of these methods?
Node Count, Pros: Costs real money to operate a node. Nodes are active participants in the network. Nodes enforce network rules.
Node Count, Cons: Can be "gamed," one user can operate multiple nodes. Total node count is about 1:1000 to total bitcoin users. Using node count as a metric does not take into account the behavior of nodes if a hard fork appears imminent.
Hashrate, Pros: To an even greater extent than nodes, costs real money. Hashrate provides the security backbone of the Bitcoin network. Cannot be faked. Hashrate ultimately makes consensus decisions (that nodes then enforce).
Hashrate, Cons: Preferences are set by mining pools, thus does not take into account the opinions of individual miners. Mining pools may be begrudgingly running one software, waiting for the right time to switch to another. Can be "gamed" in the sense that miners can give false signals in the coinbase scripts of the blocks they find.
Non-anonymous voting, Pros: Verified identity removes risk of sybil attacks or sock puppets. Attaching a real identity to an opinion can help measure the "economic weight" of voters.
Non-anonymous voting, Cons: Smaller sample size. May exclude more privacy-conscious users.
Bitcoinocracy, Pros: Perhaps one of the best ways to measure "economic weight." Requires one to actually have skin in the game to have a voice, and the more skin, the greater the voice. Does not require revealing real identity. Cannot be sybil attacked.
Bitcoinocracy, Cons: Can be heavily influenced by a few whales. Does require revealing bitcoin holdings, potentially reducing privacy.
Betting Sites & Prediction Markets, Pros: Requires "putting your money where your mouth is." With prediction markets, we can expect odds to generally converge somewhere near what is true, as participants with exclusive information will know when the odds are in their favor and they can place bets until the odds are where they should be.
Betting Sites & Prediction Markets, Cons: Very small sample size. Sample bias for users who bother to use these sites in the first place. Even those who believe they have exclusive information could be mistaken.
Forums, Pros: Ideas can be hashed out with other participants, allowing a general consensus to form, or at least allow participants to come to an agreement to disagree.
Forums, Cons: Can be manipulated by forum moderators. User accounts may not be representative of real humans. Easily gamed. Sockpuppet accounts allow for easy sybil attacking. Does not require having skin in the game to have a voice.
I don't think any of the above methods can provide a complete enough view to draw conclusions from, but each method in itself may be a useful way of measuring at least one aspect of public opinion. This post is meant to be a discussion thread, I'm curious in hearing different opinions on the weights of these different measures, if there are any useful metrics of user opinion I did not cover, additional pros and cons of the methods listed above, etc.
The Size of Blocks: Policy Tool or Emergent Phenomenon? [my presentation proposal for scaling bitcoin hong kong]
The Size of Blocks: Policy Tool or Emergent Phenomenon?
Abstract. This talk will explore the question of whether block size is a useful tool for enforcing policy or an emergent phenomenon of the network. From the policy-tool perspective, the block size represents a "lever" that policy makers might use to balance the cost of operating a node with the market price for block space (i.e., transaction fees). Assuming only that block space obeys the laws of supply and demand, we will show that for any given market condition, there exists an artificial block size limit that will produce greater network security and slower blockchain growth than the equivalent no-limit case, at the expense of higher transaction fees and reduced economic activity. Despite the flexibility offered by the policy-tool approach, we will show that little empirical evidence exists that the network is capable of enforcing a strict block size limit, questioning whether the policy-tool perspective is valid. We conclude by suggesting a simple change to the Bitcoin software to empower each node operator to more easily express his free choice regarding the size of blocks he is willing to accept while simultaneously ensuring that his node tracks consensus. Key words: 1. Block size limit. 2. Consensus rules. 3. Rationalism. 4. Empiricism.
I envision the block size debate as two groups standing on either side of a lever labeled "block size." The group on the right is pulling the handle while yelling "lower fees and more economic activity!" The group on the left is pulling back shouting "lower node costs and higher security!" I will refer to both of these groups as the Rationalists. There is also a third group I call the Empiricists: this group is observing the debate, pondering whether the lever is actually connected to the network. The talk I am proposing for Hong Kong has two purposes. The first is to view the block size limit from the perspective of the Rationalists and deduce how the position of the block-size lever affects the network. The second is to view the problem from the perspective of the Empiricists and, based only on what we have observed about the network, abduce the rules that the network obeys (including whether the network obeys a rule regarding the block size limit at all). The talk will conclude by showing that strict agreement on a block size limit is not required, and by suggesting a simple change to the Bitcoin software to promote scaling.
2. Quasi-static Variation of the Block Size
During this part of the talk, we will deduce how changes to the block size limit, Qmax, affect the behavior of the system, while holding all other variables constant, and assuming that the maximum size of blocks can be programmed. We will build off of the supply and demand curves presented by the author in his Montreal talk, and show that:
Policy actions are only effective for Qmax < Q*, where Q* is the free market equilibrium block size.
Network security is maximized for some Qmax | 0 < Qmax < Q* , resulting in greater network security than the no-limit case.
The Blockchain’s growth rate increases monotonically as Qmax increases (for Qmax < Q*).
The price per byte for block space decreases monotonically as Qmax increases (for Qmax < Q*).
Total economic activity grows monotonically as Qmax increases (for Qmax < Q*), and is maximized for all Qmax >= Q*.
3. What Laws does the Network Obey Empirically?
In the previous section, we assumed that the network would obey the programmed rules and then we used deductive reasoning to study the effect of varying one of those rules (block size limit). In this segment of my talk, we will use empirical observations and abductive reasoning (assuming no a priori knowledge of the program code), to conclude that the network obeys the following rules:
Coins cannot be moved without valid signatures.
Coins cannot be spent twice.
The rate at which new coins are created is strictly controlled.
Nodes build upon the chain that contains the greatest cumulative work (referred to simply as the longest chain).
We will then look for empirical evidence of a block size limit. I will show that over the history of Bitcoin, the block size distribution has shown distinct "peaks" at certain block size extrema, but that these peaks have often collapsed as new peaks formed at greater block sizes. Without a priori knowledge of the program code, only sparse evidence for a block size limit exists. Next, we will examine various emergent properties of the Bitcoin network including the market price of a bitcoin, the network hash rate, and Bitcoin’s adoption metrics. I will show that quantitative measures for each of these emergent phenomena are highly correlated with each other, and grow exponentially with time, albeit at different growth rates. I will then compare their growth patterns with the growth of the average block size, concluding that historically the block size has behaved very similarly (i.e., it behaves like an emergent phenomenon).
4. How Should Decisions Regarding Block Size Be Made?
In this final section, I will postulate two theorems:
A node with a block size limit greater than the hash-power weighted median will always follow the longest chain.
An excessive (e.g., greater than 1 MB) block will be accepted into the longest chain if it is smaller than the hash-power weighted median block size limit.
I will argue that it is more important that nodes follow the longest chain composed of valid transactions than dogmatically adhere to an arbitrary block size limit. I will end my talk by proposing a simple change for bitcoin software to allow a node operator to express his free choice regarding the size of blocks he is willing to accept while simultaneously ensuring that his node tracks consensus (e.g., be "BIP101 ready").
The Mike Hearn Show: Season Finale (and Bitcoin Classic: Series Premiere)
This post debunks Mike Hearn's conspiracy theories RE Blockstream in his farewell post and points out issues with the behavior of the Bitcoin Classic hard fork and sketchy tactics of its advocates I used to be torn on how to judge Mike Hearn. On the one hand he has done some good work with BitcoinJ, Lighthouse etc. Certainly his choice of bloom filter has had a net negative effect on the privacy of SPV users, but all in all it works as advertised.* On the other hand, he has single handedly advocated for some of the most alarming behavior changes in the Bitcoin network (e.g. redlists, coinbase reallocation, BIP101 etc...) to date. Not to mention his advocacy in the past year has degraded from any semblance of professionalism into an adversarial us-vs-them propaganda train. I do not believe his long history with the Bitcoin community justifies this adversarial attitude. As a side note, this post should not be taken as unabated support for Bitcoin Core. Certainly the dev team is made of humans and like all humans mistakes can be made (e.g. March 2013 fork). Some have even engaged in arguably unprofessional behavior but I have not yet witnessed any explicitly malicious activity from their camp (q). If evidence to the contrary can be provided, please share it. Thankfully the development of Bitcoin Core happens more or less completely out in the open; anyone can audit and monitor the goings on. I personally check the repo at least once a day to see what work is being done. I believe that the regular committers are genuinely interested in the overall well being of the Bitcoin network and work towards the common goal of maintaining and improving Core and do their best to juggle the competing interests of the community that depends on them. That is not to say that they are The Only Ones; for the time being they have stepped up to the plate to do the heavy lifting. Until that changes in some way they have my support. The hard line that some of the developers have drawn in regards to the block size has caused a serious rift and this write up is a direct response to oft-repeated accusations made by Mike Hearn and his supporters about members of the core development team. I have no affiliations or connection with Blockstream, however I have met a handful of the core developers, both affiliated and unaffiliated with Blockstream. Mike opens his farewell address with his pedigree to prove his opinion's worth. He masterfully washes over the mountain of work put into improving Bitcoin Core over the years by the "small blockians" to paint the picture that Blockstream is stonewalling the development of Bitcoin. The folks who signed Greg's scalability road map have done some of the most important, unsung work in Bitcoin. Performance improvements, privacy enhancements, increased reliability, better sync times, mempool management, bandwidth reductions etc... all those things are thanks to the core devs and the research community (e.g. Christian Decker), many of which will lead to a smoother transition to larger blocks (e.g. libsecp256k1).(1) While ignoring previous work and harping on the block size exclusively, Mike accuses those same people who have spent countless hours working on the protocol of trying to turn Bitcoin into something useless because they remain conservative on a highly contentious issue that has tangible effects on network topology. The nature of this accusation is characteristic of Mike's attitude over the past year which marked a shift in the block size debate from a technical argument to a personal one (in tandem with DDoS and censorship in /Bitcoin and general toxicity from both sides). For example, Mike claimed that sidechains constitutes a conflict of interest, as Blockstream employees are "strongly incentivized to ensure [bitcoin] works poorly and never improves" despite thousands of commits to the contrary. Many of these commits are top down rewrites of low level Bitcoin functionality, not chump change by any means. I am not just "counting commits" here. Anyways, Blockstream's current client base consists of Bitcoin exchanges whose future hinges on the widespread adoption of Bitcoin. The more people that use Bitcoin the more demand there will be for sidechains to service the Bitcoin economy. Additionally, one could argue that if there was some sidechain that gained significant popularity (hundreds of thousands of users), larger blocks would be necessary to handle users depositing and withdrawing funds into/from the sidechain. Perhaps if they were miners and core devs at the same time then a conflict of interest on small blocks would be a more substantive accusation (create artificial scarcity to increase tx fees). The rational behind pricing out the Bitcoin "base" via capacity constraint to increase their business prospects as a sidechain consultancy is contrived and illogical. If you believe otherwise I implore you to share a detailed scenario in your reply so I can see if I am missing something. Okay, so back to it. Mike made the right move when Core would not change its position, he forked Core and gave the community XT. The choice was there, most miners took a pass. Clearly there was not consensus on Mike's proposed scaling road map or how big blocks should be rolled out. And even though XT was a failure (mainly because of massive untested capacity increases which were opposed by some of the larger pools whose support was required to activate the 75% fork), it has inspired a wave of implementation competition. It should be noted that the censorship and attacks by members of /Bitcoin is completely unacceptable, there is no excuse for such behavior. While theymos is entitled to run his subreddit as he sees fit, if he continues to alienate users there may be a point of mass exodus following some significant event in the community that he tries to censor. As for the DDoS attackers, they should be ashamed of themselves; it is recommended that alt. nodes mask their user agents. Although Mike has left the building, his alarmist mindset on the block size debate lives on through Bitcoin Classic, an implementation which is using a more subtle approach to inspire adoption, as jtoomim cozies up with miners to get their support while appealing to the masses with a call for an adherence to Satoshi's "original vision for Bitcoin." That said, it is not clear that he is competent enough to lead the charge on the maintenance/improvement of the Bitcoin protocol. That leaves most of the heavy lifting up to Gavin, as Jeff has historically done very little actual work for Core. We are thus in a potentially more precarious situation then when we were with XT, as some Chinese miners are apparently "on board" for a hard fork block size increase. Jtoomim has expressed a willingness to accept an exceptionally low (60 or 66%) consensus threshold to activate the hard fork if necessary. Why? Because of the lost "opportunity cost" of the threshold not being reached.(c) With variance my guess is that a lucky 55% could activate that 60% threshold. That's basically two Chinese miners. I don't mean to attack him personally, he is just willing to go down a path that requires the support of only two major Chinese mining pools to activate his hard fork. As a side effect of the latency issues of GFW, a block size increase might increase orphan rate outside of GFW, profiting the Chinese pools. With a 60% threshold there is no way for miners outside of China to block that hard fork. To compound the popularity of this implementation, the efforts of Mike, Gavin and Jeff have further blinded many within the community to the mountain of effort that core devs have put in. And it seems to be working, as they are beginning to successfully ostracize the core devs beyond the network of "true big block-believers." It appears that Chinese miners are getting tired of the debate (and with it Core) and may shift to another implementation over the issue.(d) Some are going around to mining pools and trying to undermine Core's position in the soft vs. hard fork debate. These private appeals to the miner community are a concern because there is no way to know if bad information is being passed on with the intent to disrupt Core's consensus based approach to development in favor of an alternative implementation controlled (i.e. benevolent dictator) by those appealing directly to miners. If the core team is reading this, you need to get out there and start pushing your agenda so the community has a better understanding of what you all do every day and how important the work is. Get some fancy videos up to show the effects of block size increase and work on reading materials that are easy for non technically minded folk to identify with and get behind. The soft fork debate really highlights the disingenuity of some of these actors. Generally speaking, soft forks are easier on network participants who do not regularly keep up with the network's software updates or have forked the code for personal use and are unable to upgrade in time, while hard forks require timely software upgrades if the user hopes to maintain consensus after a hardfork. The merits of that argument come with heavy debate. However, more concerning is the fact that hard forks require central planning and arguably increase the power developers have over changes to the protocol.(2) In contrast, the 'signal of readiness' behavior of soft forks allows the network to update without any hardcoded flags and developer oversight. Issues with hard forks are further compounded by activation thresholds, as soft forks generally require 95% consensus while Bitcoin Classic only calls for 60-75% consensus, exposing network users to a greater risk of competing chains after the fork. Mike didn't want to give the Chinese any more power, but now the post XT fallout has pushed the Chinese miners right into the Bitcoin Classic drivers seat. While a net split did happen briefly during the BIP66 soft fork, imagine that scenario amplified by miners who do not agree to hard fork changes while controlling 25-40% of the networks hashing power. Two actively mined chains with competing interests, the Doomsday Scenario. With a 5% miner hold out on a soft fork, the fork will constantly reorg and malicious transactions will rarely have more than one or two confirmations.(b) During a soft fork, nodes can protect themselves from double spends by waiting for extra confirmations when the node alerts the user that a ANYONECANSPEND transaction has been seen. Thus, soft forks give Bitcoin users more control over their software (they can choose to treat a softfork as a soft fork or a soft fork as a hardfork) which allows for greater flexibility on upgrade plans for those actively maintaining nodes and other network critical software. (2) Advocating for a low threshold hard forks is a step in the wrong direction if we are trying to limit the "central planning" of any particular implementation. However I do not believe that is the main concern of the Bitcoin Classic devs. To switch gears a bit, Mike is ironically concerned China "controls" Bitcoin, but wanted to implement a block size increase that would only increase their relative control (via increased orphans). Until the p2p wire protocol is significantly improved (IBLT, etc...), there is very little room (if any at all) to raise the block size without significantly increasing orphan risk. This can be easily determined by looking at jtoomim's testnet network data that passed through normal p2p network, not the relay network.(3) In the mean time this will only get worse if no one picks up the slack on the relay network that Matt Corallo is no longer maintaining. (4) Centralization is bad regardless of the block size, but Mike tries to conflate the centralization issues with the Blockstream block size side show for dramatic effect. In retrospect, it would appear that the initial lack of cooperation on a block size increase actually staved off increases in orphan risk. Unfortunately, this centralization metric will likely increase with the cooperation of Chinese miners and Bitcoin Classic if major strides to reduce orphan rates are not made. Mike also manages to link to a post from the ProHashing guy RE forever-stuck transactions, which has been shown to generally be the result of poorly maintained/improperly implemented wallet software.(6) Ultimately Mike wants fees to be fixed despite the fact you can't enforce fixed fees in a system that is not centrally planned. Miners could decide to raise their minimum fees even when blocks are >1mb, especially when blocks become too big to reliably propagate across the network without being orphaned. What is the marginal cost for a tx that increases orphan risk by some %? That is a question being explored with flexcaps. Even with larger blocks, if miners outside the GFW fear orphans they will not create the bigger blocks without a decent incentive; in other words, even with a larger block size you might still end up with variable fees. Regardless, it is generally understood that variable fees are not preferred from a UX standpoint, but developers of Bitcoin software do not have the luxury of enforcing specific fees beyond basic defaults hardcoded to prevent cheap DoS attacks. We must expose the user to just enough information so they can make an informed decision without being overwhelmed. Hard? Yes. Impossible. No. Shifting gears, Mike states that current development progress via segwit is an empty ploy, despite the fact that segwit comes with not only a marginal capacity increase, but it also plugs up major malleability vectors, allows pruning blocks for historical data and a bunch of other fun stuff. It's a huge win for unconfirmed transactions (which Mike should love). Even if segwit does require non-negligible changes to wallet software and Bitcoin Core (500 lines LoC), it allows us time to improve block relay (IBLT, weak blocks) so we can start raising the block size without fear of increased orphan rate. Certainly we can rush to increase the block size now and further exacerbate the China problem, or we can focus on the "long play" and limit negative externalities. And does segwit help the Lightning Network? Yes. Is that something that indicates a Blockstream conspiracy? No. Comically, the big blockians used to criticize Blockstream for advocating for LN when there was no one working on it, but now that it is actively being developed, the tune has changed and everything Blockstream does is a conspiracy to push for Bitcoin's future as a dystopic LN powered settlement network. Is LN "the answer?" Obviously not, most don't actually think that. How it actually works in practice is yet to be seen and there could be unforseen emergent characteristics that make it less useful for the average user than originally thought. But it's a tool that should be developed in unison with other scaling measures if only for its usefulness for instant txs and micropayments. Regardless, the fundamental divide rests on ideological differences that we all know well. Mike is fine with the miner-only validation model for nodes and is willing to accept some miner centralization so long as he gets the necessary capacity increases to satisfy his personal expectations for the immediate future of Bitcoin. Greg and co believe that a distributed full node landscape helps maintain a balance of decentralization in the face of the miner centralization threat. For example, if you have 10 miners who are the only sources for blockchain data then you run the risk of undetectable censorship, prolific sybil attacks, and no mechanism for individuals to validate the network without trusting a third party. As an analogy, take the tor network: you use it with an expectation of privacy while understanding that the multi-hop nature of the routing will increase latency. Certainly you could improve latency by removing a hop or two, but with it you lose some privacy. Does tor's high latency make it useless? Maybe for watching Netflix, but not for submitting leaked documents to some newspaper. I believe this is the philosophy held by most of the core development team. Mike does not believe that the Bitcoin network should cater to this philosophy and any activity which stunts the growth of on-chain transactions is a direct attack on the protocol. Ultimately however I believe Greg and co. also want Bitcoin to scale on-chain transactions as much as possible. They believe that in order for Bitcoin to increase its capacity while adhering to acceptable levels of decentralization, much work needs to be done. It's not a matter of if block size will be increased, but when. Mike has confused this adherence to strong principles of decentralization as disingenuous and a cover up for a dystopic future of Bitcoin where sidechains run wild with financial institutions paying $40 per transaction. Again, this does not make any sense to me. If banks are spending millions to co-op this network what advantage does a decentralized node landscape have to them? There are a few roads that the community can take now: one where we delay a block size increase while improvements to the protocol are made (with the understanding that some users may have to wait a few blocks to have their transaction included, fees will be dependent on transaction volume, and transactions <$1 may be temporarily cost ineffective) so that when we do increase the block size, orphan rate and node drop off are insignificant. Another is the immediate large block size increase which possibly leads to a future Bitcoin which looks nothing like it does today: low numbers of validating nodes, heavy trust in centralized network explorers and thus a more vulnerable network to government coercion/general attack. Certainly there are smaller steps for block size increases which might not be as immediately devastating, and perhaps that is the middle ground which needs to be trodden to appease those who are emotionally invested in a bigger block size. Combined with segwit however, max block sizes could reach unacceptable levels. There are other scenarios which might play out with competing chains etc..., but in that future Bitcoin has effectively failed. As any technology that requires maintenance and human interaction, Bitcoin will require politicking for decision making. Up until now that has occurred via the "vote download" for software which implements some change to the protocol. I believe this will continue to be the most robust of options available to us. Now that there is competition, the Bitcoin Core community can properly advocate for changes to the protocol that it sees fit without being accused of co-opting the development of Bitcoin. An ironic outcome to the situation at hand. If users want their Bitcoins to remain valuable, they must actively determine which developers are most competent and have their best interests at heart. So far the core dev community has years of substantial and successful contributions under its belt, while the alt implementations have a smattering of developers who have not yet publicly proven (besides perhaps Gavin--although his early mistakes with block size estimates is concerning) they have the skills and endurance necessary to maintain a full node implementation. Perhaps now it is time that we focus on the personalities who many want to trust Bitcoin's future. Let us see if they can improve the speed at which signatures are validated by 7x. Or if they can devise privacy preserving protocols like Confidential Transactions. Or can they figure out ways to improve traversal times across a merkle tree? Can they implement HD functionality into a wallet without any coin-crushing bugs? Can they successfully modularize their implementation without breaking everything? If so, let's welcome them with open arms. But Mike is at R3 now, which seems like a better fit for him ideologically. He can govern the rules with relative impunity and there is not a huge community of open source developers, researchers and enthusiasts to disagree with. I will admit, his posts are very convincing at first blush, but ultimately they are nothing more than a one sided appeal to the those in the community who have unrealistic or incomplete understandings of the technical challenges faced by developers maintaining a consensus critical, validation-heavy, distributed system that operates within an adversarial environment. Mike always enjoyed attacking Blockstream, but when survey his past behavior it becomes clear that his motives were not always pure. Why else would you leave with such a nasty, public farewell? To all the XT'ers, btc'ers and so on, I only ask that you show some compassion when you critique the work of Bitcoin Core devs. We understand you have a competing vision for the scaling of Bitcoin over the next few years. They want Bitcoin to scale too, you just disagree on how and when it should be done. Vilifying and attacking the developers only further divides the community and scares away potential future talent who may want to further the Bitcoin cause. Unless you can replace the folks doing all this hard work on the protocol or can pay someone equally as competent, please think twice before you say something nasty. As for Mike, I wish you the best at R3 and hope that you can one day return to the Bitcoin community with a more open mind. It must hurt having your software out there being used by so many but your voice snuffed. Hopefully one day you can return when many of the hard problems are solved (e.g. reduced propagation delays, better access to cheap bandwidth) and the road to safe block size increases have been paved. (*) https://eprint.iacr.org/2014/763.pdf (q) https://github.com/bitcoinclassic/bitcoinclassic/pull/6 (b) https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-Decembe012026.html (c) https://github.com/bitcoinclassic/bitcoinclassic/pull/1#issuecomment-170299027 (d) http://toom.im/jameshilliard_classic_PR_1.html (0) http://bitcoinstats.com/irc/bitcoin-dev/logs/2016/01/06 (1) https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/graphs/contributors (2) https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-Decembe012014.html (3) https://toom.im/blocktime (beware of heavy website) (4) https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=766190.msg13510513#msg13510513 (5) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10774773 (6) http://rusty.ozlabs.org/?p=573 edit, fixed some things. edit 2, tried to clarify some more things and remove some personal bias thanks to astro
Hear me out... what if we pegged the maximum block size to difficulty?
There are many different views among people who want to scale bitcoin on chain. Some feel there should be no maximum blocksize. They feel that miners will not publish giant blocks because of the orphan risk. Also, doing this would damage bitcoin, hurt the price, and by extension the miner's bottom line. Others (like me) feel that this is too risky and that someone with ulterior motives may try to harm bitcoin by bloating the blockchain, whether that's suddenly, or gradually. It could be another competing cryptocurrency, who is to say? Proposed solutions:
Pruning is a solution, but a politically charged one, because it limits how far back you can verify the blockchain.
Sharding is a cool idea, but difficult to implement without changing the security model.
L2 solutions certainly have specific use cases, but have not panned out as a replacement for peer to peer payments between individuals. They seem like a great way for large exchanges or wallets to transact off chain.
Scaling solutions that let miners "vote" on a maximum blocksize all had vulnerabilities. BIP100 was vulnerable to a 25% attack, because 75% must be in favor of an increase to change the maximum. If just 25% of the hash power opposed scaling (as it arguably does today), Bitcoin would stagnate.
BIP101 tied scaling to an extrapolation of broadband, storage, and processing efficiencies we've seen over the last 120 or so years. Of all of the approaches, I still favor this one the most, but it was countered with arguments that "Moore's Law is dead", which is repeated by luddites who forget that we've moved from mechanical to relay to vacuum tube, to transistor technology before integrated circuits, and something new is likely to pop up and remove the blockade.
But what if I'm wrong and that new technology doesn't appear? What if we scale the blocksize, but hardware cannot keep pace, and suddenly only google can afford to run a Bitcoin node? Whether or not this is a reasonable concern doesn't matter, it's scary enough to block scaling solutions and fragment the community. A different solution What if the maximum blocksize could be pegged to the speed of processing? Processing, network, and storage efficiencies are positively correlated over decades. What if we pegged the blocksize to... difficulty? This would mean two variables would drive the maximum throughput of the Bitcoin network: 1) the price of Bitcoin 2) the efficiency of the chips mining it These two variables seem like a great way to limit the maximum blocksize, because they do not require human voting (arguably the bitcoin price is set by "voting" on the market I suppose), but also aren't a blind extrapolation of past trends in computing efficiency. We would end up with bigger blocks as difficulty increases. As long as the scale only goes larger and does not shrink, this feels like a way to scale on chain that avoids a lot of the challenges of other proposals. You could literally divide the difficulty by 100,000 and have your maximum blocksize, or almost 12 MB blocks right now.
As the Bitcoin Price Rises to New 2015 Highs, Investors Seek to Explain Recent Gains. Brian Armstrong, CEO of record-funded Bitcoin wallet service and exchange Coinbase, plans a code update to allow for bigger blocks in the second week of December, and has indicated he prefers BIP (Bitcoin Improvement Proposal) 101. This makes Coinbase the latest Bitcoin industry heavyweight to endorse the ... Also read: Bitcoin Price Crashes amid Perceived Network Disagreement over Block Size. BIP 101: The Topic of Heavy and Heated Debates. While all of the drama on social media and Reddit is going from bad to ugly, most people have forgotten the reason this discussion started in the first place. The Bitcoin block size limit of 1MB proved sufficient in the early stages of the protocol, but things ... r/Bitcoin 1.4m members. u/Peter__R • Nov 30, 2015. Visualizing BIP101: A Payment Network for Planet Earth. imgur ... BIP101 - blocks with version 0x20000007 as defined in BIP101; None ... Price volatility is calculated as standard deviation from all market trades. For longer periods it is average of hourly standard deviations (stddev calculated for each hour then averaged) Current Bitcoin market capitalization: Binance. Volume (24h): 437 No. Markets: -34.29% Launched: 01/01/1970 Spot Markets Trade (with ... BIP101. A more radical approach on the issue of scaling bitcoin. Initially supported by Gavin Andresen and Mike Hearn. It proposed a direct switch to an 8MB block size limit that would even double every two years. Efforts for it ended with Mike Hearn quitting bitcoin as a whole, stating that he finds bitcoin to be a “failed experiment”.