200300+ entries in 0.059s
mircea_popescu: but it horribru or not horribru - a) we are currently keeping state, just, as a constant and b) there is no way to make pie-in-the-sky arbitrary values work.
mircea_popescu: you can't allow it to reduce block size, because the noise will make the system unbound and it'll collapse.
mircea_popescu: that's the biggest problem with it, it introduces a state.
mircea_popescu: (in case it wasn't obvious - this wouldn't allow a decrease of blocksize. increase only)
mircea_popescu: (ie, 1mb exactly. because 990 mb blocks fails to allow for an increase by the above proposal)
mircea_popescu: there has not yet been as much as a signle day of straight full blocks.
mircea_popescu: if the fee market has not developed by the time the blocks are filled like that, it;s not happening.
mircea_popescu: it necessarily would. because unless two weeks worth of filled blocks, it does nothing.
mircea_popescu: 20 empty blocks in the two weeks interval nullify the growth.
mircea_popescu: maintaining full blocks for two weeks straight has not happened yet nor would it be trivial
mircea_popescu: that's the difference : i have no need for an arbitrary 18% no matter what.
mircea_popescu: actual bitcoin users can actually force the miners, by paying enough to make their transactions not-non-mineable, even if it fills blocks
mircea_popescu: gives everyone some leverage - miners that want to keep blocks smaller can mine empty blocks. miners that mine large blocks have the usual disadvantage due to speed. the thing itself allows very limited growth, in the sense of 1% growth if the previous two weeks were all full blocks.
mircea_popescu: a function that, after each retarget, allows blocks as large as say 1.01x the average actual size of the blocks in the 2k batch for instance.
☟︎ mircea_popescu: "Attempting to buy time with a fast increase is not wanting to face that reality, and treating the system as something whose scale trumps all other concerns. A long term scalability plan should aim on decreasing the need for trust required in off-chain systems, rather than increasing the need for trust in Bitcoin." etc
mircea_popescu: mostly for "Bitcoin's advantage over other systems does not lie in scalability. Well-designed centralized systems can trivially compete with Bitcoin's on-chain transactions in terms of cost, speed, reliability, convenience, and scale. Its power lies in transparency, lack of need for trust in network peers, miners, and those who influence or control the system. Wanting to increase the scale of the system is in conflict
mircea_popescu: certainly more than reddit modertatorship's paying hjim
mircea_popescu: weird that he didn't choose to take that stand three years ago on his own damned forum, but instead goes to break his neck on someone else's shit platform.
mircea_popescu: BingoBoingo lol 2 votes, 100% upvoted, yet it's not in new not in rising etc.
mircea_popescu: recently, cuz it was luzly how i'm apparently the only one remembering.
mircea_popescu: hmm, anyone recall where the fuck i put that screenshot of gavin casually admitting that satoshi never spoke to him after he ran off and "presented" bitcoin @nsa hq ?
mircea_popescu: "Imagine that happened when they thought they had 75% but actually only 10%..." <<< no need to imagine anything. simply recall the event a few weeks ago when they who thought they had 90% actually had <40%.
mircea_popescu: iirc he made some start-up with max keiser, which failed.
mircea_popescu: mats upon research it turns out that teh guy isn't/wasn't actually doing anything. i'm obviously not the best avenue for that.
mircea_popescu: ben_vulpes i dun have vlc on this machine and i don't usually care enough to check some vid on a dirty box
mircea_popescu: the b-a node could do this since forever, if anytone gave a shit to bother.
mircea_popescu: being an ass is the best thing to be - you get all teh pleasure.
mircea_popescu: !v assbot:mircea_popescu.rate.btcdrak.1:a647ff23eec9625b49ce18eb7a22cb190710fff646b72cf2b7ed06982735e980
mircea_popescu: let gavinhearn come out with a "hey it's notrly satoshi" first.
mircea_popescu: no point doing that before the idiots invest themselves in it.
mircea_popescu: "Can't see why SN would write about Gavin in this sort of terse/removed tone."
mircea_popescu: "Heh, whoever this guy is, he probably could have never anticipated that the Streisand effect will be the downfall of the small-blockers' side. "
mircea_popescu: anyway, the reddit thread is pretty lulzy. all teh butthurt awww.
mircea_popescu: obviously all i see in there is "Hearn is a shitstain, MP is right, fuck reddit. Love, Satoshi". but that'd be me.
mircea_popescu: sorry for taking the space, but you never know what else happens on teh internets.
mircea_popescu: If two developers can fork Bitcoin and succeed in redefining what "Bitcoin" is, in the face of widespread technical criticism and through the use of populist tactics, then I will have no choice but to declare Bitcoin a failed project. Bitcoin was meant to be both technically and socially robust. This present situation has been very disappointing to watch unfold.
mircea_popescu: l problem, and we should take more time to come up with a robust solution. I suspect we need a better incentive for users to run nodes instead of relying solely on altruism.
mircea_popescu: They use my old writings to make claims about what Bitcoin was supposed to be. However I acknowledge that a lot has changed since that time, and new knowledge has been gained that contradicts some of my early opinions. For example I didn't anticipate pooled mining and its effects on the security of the network. Making Bitcoin a competitive monetary system while also preserving its security properties is not a trivia
mircea_popescu: hi Nakamoto. Nearly everyone has to agree on a change, and they have to do it without being forced or pressured into it. By doing a fork in this way, these developers are violating the "original vision" they claim to honour.
mircea_popescu: The developers of this pretender-Bitcoin claim to be following my original vision, but nothing could be further from the truth. When I designed Bitcoin, I designed it in such a way as to make future modifications to the consensus rules difficult without near unanimous agreement. Bitcoin was designed to be protected from the influence of charismatic leaders, even if their name is Gavin Andresen, Barack Obama, or Satos
mircea_popescu: I have been following the recent block size debates through the mailing list. I had hoped the debate would resolve and that a fork proposal would achieve widespread consensus. However with the formal release of Bitcoin XT 0.11A, this looks unlikely to happen, and so I am forced to share my concerns about this very dangerous fork.
mircea_popescu: it makes money like "i'm going to be a star" makes money.