Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Is Bitcoin breaking up?

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 100 posts

Re: Is Bitcoin breaking up?

#81

Post by kobayashi »

martinko wrote: post #49
kobayashi wrote: post #47

What is the downside to moving from 1MB to 2MB blocksizes, instead of moving up to 8MB or 20MB? If the reasonable maximum number of trades per minutes is 3 at the moment, does a doubling of the blocksize merely double the allowable number of trades per minute, or is it somehow a logarithmic change?

It does just double it. The problem with increasing it more is propagation speeds around the planet (this needs to be as fast as possible or another miner may get the block reward), especially if the miner is sitting in china.

So is increasing the blocksize beyond 2MB expected to favour Chinese minors more so than average users? And if that's the case, would you mind explaining how so, exactly?

Re: Is Bitcoin breaking up?

#82

Post by aws_ls »

mike_hearn wrote: post #64
Lazare wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The way XT seems to have failed yet Classic seems to be suceeding seems odd to me. Is all it took really just to have a developer fly out to China and talk to a hanful of people? Seems like there's a lot more politics going on behind the scenes. In any case, fixing the blocksize limit will be good, but I think the real value in Classic is breaking the perceived monopoly Core has and moving to a healthier political se…

No. It took a sharp fall in the BTC price. This narrative that Gavin and I were unwilling to compromise is deeply unfortunate. BIP 101 originally started with a 20mb limit+growth. That was based on some calculations Gavin did. At that point the Chinese miners started saying they couldn't accept 20 because of the firewall, but eight would be OK. They put announcements of their support for eight megabyte blocks in thei…

>No. It took a sharp fall in the BTC price

And the trigger for that was your medium article the other day. :-)

And since, block size/scalability was the key point in your post. Would you be willing to re-join Bitcoin, since what you wanted would be achieved? Even if its Classic and not via XT.

Perhaps, my question may come across as naive. But looking at it from outside (reading /Bitcoin & /btc & etc), it would definitely clear a lot of air, and be good for Bitcoin.

Re: Is Bitcoin breaking up?

#83

Post by simoncion »

kobayashi wrote: post #81
martinko wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does just double it. The problem with increasing it more is propagation speeds around the planet (this needs to be as fast as possible or another miner may get the block reward), especially if the miner is sitting in china.

So is increasing the blocksize beyond 2MB expected to favour Chinese minors more so than average users? And if that's the case, would you mind explaining how so, exactly?

I'm fairly certain that the problem is that users with catastrophically slow or spotty internet connections are the ones that stand to lose in that situation, and that > 50% of Bitcoin's miners are in China, which partially explains the rabid past support for a refusal to increase the max blocksize.

Re: Is Bitcoin breaking up?

#84

Post by martinko »

kobayashi wrote: post #81
martinko wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does just double it. The problem with increasing it more is propagation speeds around the planet (this needs to be as fast as possible or another miner may get the block reward), especially if the miner is sitting in china.

So is increasing the blocksize beyond 2MB expected to favour Chinese minors more so than average users? And if that's the case, would you mind explaining how so, exactly?

The dynamic is not one in which when miners win, users lose. The issue is that users want more transactions per second and therefore want bigger blocks to be created, however, when miners create larger blocks, they have a hard(er) time propagating them to the entire network and thereby run the risk of their block being orphaned (someone else's block will be accepted first, and the miner's block and work done on that block will be wasted).

Re: Is Bitcoin breaking up?

#85

Post by RealityVoid »

Anonobread wrote: post #62
Lazare wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The way XT seems to have failed yet Classic seems to be suceeding seems odd to me. Is all it took really just to have a developer fly out to China and talk to a hanful of people? Seems like there's a lot more politics going on behind the scenes. In any case, fixing the blocksize limit will be good, but I think the real value in Classic is breaking the perceived monopoly Core has and moving to a healthier political se…

> In any case, fixing the blocksize limit will be good This presumes the blocksize limit is being fixed, which is an incorrect assumption. Originally, the proponents of Classic wanted to boost block size limits to 20MB effective January 2016 [1], and used bombastic and divisive language, inventing their own crisis even, to get people to take them seriously. Interestingly, those same people are now contending for just…

This... does not sound good at all. Frankly, I wasn't expecting that scaling the block size would be so taxing on normal nodes.

Re: Is Bitcoin breaking up?

#86

Post by [deleted] »

mike_hearn wrote: post #64
Lazare wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The way XT seems to have failed yet Classic seems to be suceeding seems odd to me. Is all it took really just to have a developer fly out to China and talk to a hanful of people? Seems like there's a lot more politics going on behind the scenes. In any case, fixing the blocksize limit will be good, but I think the real value in Classic is breaking the perceived monopoly Core has and moving to a healthier political se…

No. It took a sharp fall in the BTC price. This narrative that Gavin and I were unwilling to compromise is deeply unfortunate. BIP 101 originally started with a 20mb limit+growth. That was based on some calculations Gavin did. At that point the Chinese miners started saying they couldn't accept 20 because of the firewall, but eight would be OK. They put announcements of their support for eight megabyte blocks in thei…

[deleted]

Re: Is Bitcoin breaking up?

#87

Post by repomies691 »

mike_hearn wrote: post #64
Lazare wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The way XT seems to have failed yet Classic seems to be suceeding seems odd to me. Is all it took really just to have a developer fly out to China and talk to a hanful of people? Seems like there's a lot more politics going on behind the scenes. In any case, fixing the blocksize limit will be good, but I think the real value in Classic is breaking the perceived monopoly Core has and moving to a healthier political se…

No. It took a sharp fall in the BTC price. This narrative that Gavin and I were unwilling to compromise is deeply unfortunate. BIP 101 originally started with a 20mb limit+growth. That was based on some calculations Gavin did. At that point the Chinese miners started saying they couldn't accept 20 because of the firewall, but eight would be OK. They put announcements of their support for eight megabyte blocks in thei…

How is this your concern any more? You promised to leave bitcoin scene because it has failed, why don't you focus on R3Coin instead.

Re: Is Bitcoin breaking up?

#88

Post by darwins_pitbull »

Hi Mike. I met you at San Jose conference in 2013. I remember very clearly- you were the most dashing, handsome, well spoken and charismatic person at the entire conference, a very rare find in the developer community. I was just finding my bearings in this technology at the time, I was a long way from home, and remember the confidence it instilled in me, knowing that someone like yourself was involved in this. But as I followed your contributions to the effort in the months after the conference, it was so confusing- nothing you did really seemed to help, your suggestions were widely panned by most of the best technical minds, and you seemed to devote your energy to platforms that are largely made up of newbies.

If I was a handler for an organization that wanted to insert an asset into the bitcoin community, someone like you would be the ideal candidate. Someone that young people, new to the community, naturally respect and will listen to. Strange how you've spent so much time cultivating your standing with people like that, while your reputation plummeted among the people that understood the network (and had far more skin in the game than you did, because if I remember correctly you never foresaw the spectacular growth of the bitcoin network, never thought it would work, and therefore did not really have that many coins yourself). I have a long history of having a keenly skeptical eye, I have solid critical thinking skills, and I bat away wacky theories all day long. I have NEVER, in any forum, posted any comment of any type in regards to bitcoin, this is my first one- I believe in speaking humbly, thinking deeply and acting bravely. While the evidence that your motives in the bitcoin network may not be what you say they are is only circumstantial, it has been accumulating for some time now. And the strongest allegations have come from the people who have the best reputations for clear thinking and scam calling. I mean you no ill will Mike, regardless of your intentions. But the forces at play and the implications of our technologies' reach is so spectacular that it is quite reasonable now for us to assume that smart and highly motivated people will appear who will use great cunning to harm the network. Every spidey sense I possess has been going off about you for a long time now. I can remain silent no longer.

J'accuse Mike, J'accuse.

Re: Is Bitcoin breaking up?

#89

Post by CyberDildonics »

kobayashi wrote: post #79
CyberDildonics wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many people have said the same thing. Right now a group of people has gone to a lot of trouble to control the main repository and forums. At the same time, many algorithms have been proposed. The most pressing problem at the moment is making sure there is room to grow, proving that a fork can happen, and getting the software out of the control of the people who have incentives that are opposing the vast majority of a…

Ah, okay. So it's a matter of getting the ball rolling for now. And then XT-type changes may occur in the future?

I think that is likely although that is predicting the future territory. Fundamentally the block size limit is about consensus, which bitcoin is very good at. I personally think consensus about the block size limit should be amended constantly through each block mined. Some would agree and some would disagree.

Re: Is Bitcoin breaking up?

#90

Post by dlsx »

mike_hearn wrote: post #64
Lazare wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The way XT seems to have failed yet Classic seems to be suceeding seems odd to me. Is all it took really just to have a developer fly out to China and talk to a hanful of people? Seems like there's a lot more politics going on behind the scenes. In any case, fixing the blocksize limit will be good, but I think the real value in Classic is breaking the perceived monopoly Core has and moving to a healthier political se…

No. It took a sharp fall in the BTC price. This narrative that Gavin and I were unwilling to compromise is deeply unfortunate. BIP 101 originally started with a 20mb limit+growth. That was based on some calculations Gavin did. At that point the Chinese miners started saying they couldn't accept 20 because of the firewall, but eight would be OK. They put announcements of their support for eight megabyte blocks in thei…

Bitcoin is inherently malicious. It is deceptive in that it promotes the illusion of power through manipulating bitcoin. It is very easy, for certain people to manipulate.

China for example, and all of the miners the more people that are involved the higher you go with Bitcoin the more corrupt it becomes. I find it highly centralized, and in the control of a very select few. Even the Winklevoss twins holdings is not the same as the miners and their groupthink.

Failed experiment, yes. But now you have an 8000 lb monster in the room. Does this require regulation or is the monster going to destroy itself?

Post reply on HN