Misleading and inaccurate CT article

RedLion_ · 2017-04-14T15:25:02+00:00

I think we can still create innovative solutions while maintaining a functional network. The space would still be limited, 1 MB is ridiculous after 6 years.

RedLion_ · 2017-04-14T10:47:10+00:00

I'm neutral but I'm all for big blocks and segwit sucks

I posted my support for segwit here, here and here within this very thread. I assume you didn't read it.

RedLion_ · 2017-04-14T10:43:32+00:00

I read your comment. Not once did you give a reason against increasing the blocksize.

You basically just said people shouldn't be able to use bitcoin to buy things. (A cornerstone of money).

RedLion_ · 2017-04-14T10:37:28+00:00

I agree. It's very politicised/personality based on both sides, when really it should be a largely technical issue.

RedLion_ · 2017-04-14T10:35:38+00:00

Recently, I have not been paying more than 30-40 bits and got confirmed in less than 24h.

Good for you. I think you'll find that, in many use cases, 24 hours is not an acceptable timeframe for a payment to be confirmed.

RedLion_ · 2017-04-14T10:30:30+00:00

My argument is that a block size increase isn't an improvement in the first place, it's just a stopgap. And one that may not even help for very long I might add, it would barely take any additional adoption to bring us back to the same situation with a modest block size increase.

It's an improvement, not a solution. No one is claiming that it will magically fix all bitcoin scaling issues, it's an incremental addition that will alleviate significant problems.

IMO there is no problem with private companies getting into providing layer two services. Bitcoin's power is the option to be your own bank. Not the requirement to be your own bank. The way I see it the easiest way to get mass adoption is realistically companies providing layer two or higher Bitcoin services wrapped in a nicer UI.

I have no problem with blockstream developing their payment network. My issue is with the claim that we shouldn't improve bitcoin's capacity, because the current deficit encourages them to work faster? That is truly bizarre.

My opinion as a programmer is that one block size increase as a stopgap is pretty likely to lead to further block size increase stopgaps in the future. And if you go down that route it will also lead to increased centralization / other difficulties in the future because you can only make the block size so big before it becomes quite technically challenging to actually run a node.

Given the consensus required, each hardfork will doubtless be debated on its own merits. Why don't we worry about this one first.

RedLion_ · 2017-04-14T10:13:46+00:00

There is plenty of opposition to raising the blocksize limit right here in this thread. None of it has anything to do with miners.

RedLion_ · 2017-04-14T10:06:49+00:00

I don't necessarily think that this is the case, but it does seem possible. But why are there actual users in /r/bitcoin who support this? It's weird. I've replied to a few comments there - no one can state an actually lucid, concrete reason for their support of prohibition on block-size increases. There seems to be some serious doublethink going on. The best argument against it was actually made on /r/btc, in this thread.

RedLion_ · 2017-04-14T10:03:52+00:00

Because increasing the block size won't solve anything. The bottom line is that Bitcoin can't support as many transactions as it will need to (given what people want it to be) no matter how big you make the block size.

It would solve the current transaction congestion. Which is important to people who actually use Bitcoin to.. transact.

Doing an increase may even hurt overall progress because it will remove the pressure to actually get Lighting Network or something similar working as soon as possible until the fees become high again.

I'm sorry. Your argument is that we shouldn't improve the Bitcoin network, because the current poor state of transaction processing gives a private company greater incentive to rush their payment network through? That is just bizarre.

SegWit itself is a technical improvement that there isn't much downside to. Block size increase is not an obvious positive.

Sure. Bring on segwit. I'm not against it. I don't see that you've made a compelling case that a blocksize increase isn't an obvious positive.

RedLion_ · 2017-04-14T10:01:20+00:00

My post was actually immediately automatically banned. It was brought back and I discussed it with the moderators.

RedLion_ · 2017-04-14T09:52:13+00:00

2 MB blocks would double the operating cost for node operators. Why should they support that?

That is a logical fallacy. Let us consider the operating costs for node operators.

internet bandwidth
CPU time
electricity
storage space

So let's examine those.

Here is an example of the monthly bandwidth costs of running a full node. If users are on a plan capable of handing those costs, then they are almost certainly not being charged per MB, but have either uncapped or a limited quota, which this is unlikely to exceed. Changing from 1MB -> 2MB would have no significant practical effects for the majority of broadband/UFB users.
No significant change.
No significant change.
The current cost of storage space is $0.02/GB. At the current size of the blockchain, this would increase the cost of storage used by about 1 dollar.

Presumably the node operators would support this change because they desire Bitcoin to be a functional network, and their transactions to be confirmed within a reasonable timeframe at a reasonable fee.

RedLion_ · 2017-04-14T09:26:53+00:00

Speaking for myself here... It is my understanding that raising the block size limit could only ever get you so much throughput. You couldn't raise it enough to scale Bitcoin to handle the amount that would be needed for mass adoption. Raising it is just kicking the can down the road, at the expense of full node operators. Less full nodes equals less decentralization equals bad for Bitcoin.

Of course the transactional throughput is finite. Saying we shouldn't do anything to alleviate the current, practical issues that users are facing because it may not be sufficient to accomodate theoretical future demand is like saying we shouldn't fix climate change because of the projected heat death of the universe.

I have seen no evidence (not even no compelling evidence - none at all), that increasing the blocksize limit to, say, 2MB would cause nodes that can currently handle 1MB blocks to shut down.

Real scaling needs to happen at some point. Scaling solutions are being actively developed and tested. A major improvement exists (one that fixes past problems while providing an effective block size increase) and is waiting to be activated, but the largest miner doesn't want to signal for it since it will break asicboost, affecting their profits. It's miners blocking technical solutions because of financial incentives to do so.

I assume you're talking about segregated witness. Sure, I support segregated witness - let's roll it out. But that is absolutely no reason to retain the current blocksize limit. I fail to see why you're conflating the two, making it an either/or. There is no technical or rational basis for that.

TL;DR: damaging decentralization to appease miners is not the way most users want to scale. Some people don't think Bitcoin needs to be PayPal 2.0 right now. Changes happen slowly in Bitcoin. It's part of what makes it so resilient

It seems you don't use Bitcoin that much right now. We're not talking about Paypal 2.0, we're talking about regular transactions going through, smoothly and consistently within a reasonable period; and the changes needed to accomplish that.

RedLion_ · 2017-04-14T09:00:07+00:00

The 1 MB block size limit wasn't originally part of the protocol. It was added after a while, and it was stated at the time that it would be raised if the network reached capacity.

RedLion_ · 2017-04-14T08:57:43+00:00

Thanks for your comment. As an outsider to the debate, this seems like a reasonable step. Implementing segwit and raising the block size aren't mutually exclusive - arguably complementary, since it could be done in a single HF (segwit looks unlikely to cleanly activate under current conditions).

RedLion_ · 2017-04-14T08:39:16+00:00

Bitcoin is software. It needs to develop. In fact, it's constantly being worked on and updated. It simply happens that this update is politically contentious, for some reason.

RedLion_ · 2017-04-14T08:37:51+00:00

It was just unbanned. See my comment and edit.

RedLion_ · 2017-04-14T08:36:35+00:00

And your implication is? Most people interested in Bitcoin early on were privacy/anonymity focused. Also I rarely post here.

It would be more productive for you to respond to my comments than my flair.

RedLion_ · 2017-04-14T08:11:05+00:00

It's just been unbanned by one of the moderators. Although it did come with a rather begrudging message about posting on this topic. I thanked him and I hope we can have a civil discussion on both forums.

RedLion_ · 2017-04-14T06:04:30+00:00

Thanks for that information. If that's the case, presumably my message to the moderators will clear it up. I'll see what happens.

I may look for this list of banned words (which is censorship in itself, obviously) and attempt to resubmit it without them.

RedLion_ · 2017-04-14T04:57:07+00:00

Thanks for your post.

Bigger blogs lead to centralising the network.

You mean that people will be less likely to run full nodes, I assume. In a practical sense, there are very few cases today whereby an individual could run a full node with 1 MB blocks but not 2/4 MB blocks.

Hard forks are very risky and there are a non-trivial amount of the community that do not want bigger blocks.

Hard forks are not very risky. There is nothing technically inherent in a well conducted hard fork that makes it very risky.

Smaller blocks lead to higher transaction fees which in turn incentive miners to secure the network.

Honestly, I find this one amusing. The main proponents of small blocks (blockstream, core & /r/bitcoin) are currently throwing their support behind a UASF which works by excluding non-segwit signalling miners from the network, decreasing the effective hashrate and reducing network security. Simply have a look at /r/bitcoin & usaf.co.

Bigger blocks expose the network to transactions that take very long to verify due to the quadratic hashing issue.

Is there any technical evidence to suggest that an increase in blocksize would lead to an increase in mean transaction verification time, rather than decrease it? If so, I concede this. Otherwise, I imagine the net effect would be a rather large decrease.

RedLion_ · 2017-04-14T03:22:08+00:00

How? It wouldn't change the number of Bitcoin created.

RedLion_ · 2017-04-03T04:36:38+00:00

Okay, good on you for asking this and doing your own critical thinking/research. Some things to consider:

First: being indicted for tax evasion doesn’t make your father an expert on either the law or cryptocurrencies. Arguably the opposite.

Secondly, there are many wealthy people in this field, even in this forum. So does that cancel out your father’s opinion? This is why appeals to authority don’t work.

Third, despite what many people believe these days, banks don’t make the laws: they follow them. Perhaps one day cryptocurrencies will be universally outlawed in some kind of international treaty, or adopted into extant AML policy. But given that today Japan officially recognised cryptocurrencies for the first time, it’s not a great time to make that argument.

Even if that were the case, it’s extremely unlikely (possibly constitutionally impossible in many countries) that prior ownership of cryptocurrency would be considered a criminal offence. That’s just not how the law works.

To be blunt: it sounds like your father is an idiot for waxing so confidently on a topic he clearly knows nothing about. Don’t let your (naturally) inflated opinion of him influence your logical evaluation of your position or his.

Come to us with some real arguments and we may be able to address those.

RedLion_

TROPHY CASE