presence
Member
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2011
- Messages
- 19,330
The Litepresence Report on Cryptocurrency
- Thread starter presence
- Start date
presence
Member
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2011
- Messages
- 19,330
https://ihb.io/2015-05-04/news/hard-fork-bitcoin-17003
Hard fork Bitcoin: Controversy over increasing the bitcoin block size resurfaces
May 4th, 2015 | Amith Nirgunarthy
0
Hard fork Bitcoin
Gavin Andresen recently updated his Github account with code he is testing to increase the block size limit to 20 mb from 1 mb today. In typical fashion, the bitcoin community got very emotional and heated responses ensued on reddit. It is no surprise that Gavin is moving in this direction and has been very vocal about this plan for sometime now.
In response to one reddit user’s comments, Gavin stated “it is intended as ‘it is time to discuss this now.’ I will be writing a series of blog posts in the coming week or two responding to objections I’ve heard.”
This is a big deal as the change in code would require a hard fork, which if accepted would render miners who do not upgrade to be useless.
What is a hard fork?
A hard fork happens when a new version of the full node client accepts blocks as valid that previous versions would have rejected as invalid. The moment such a block gets submitted to the live network, the new clients will accept it and build on that chain, whereas the old clients will reject it and start building on a different block at that height, at which point the two networks are operating on different longest chains (hence fork). – From reddit user d4d5c4e5
The Bitcoin wiki has a page dedicated to keeping a “Hardfork Wishlist” to record changes to Bitcoin that might be desirable, but that will require a “hard” block-chain split (everybody must upgrade, old software will not accept blocks/transactions created with the new rules, considering them to be invalid blocks).
So it is safe to say hardfork discussions have been around for a while, but it seems many vocal members of the community look at hardforks with great suspicion.
Technom4ge comments from reddit
I understand your arguments. I don’t see Bitcoin necessarily needing to aim at Visa transaction counts directly either. However Bitcoin does need to reach the amounts of regular wire transfers / SEPA directly and currently it simply doesn’t cut it.
The 1MB limit is not some holy grail Satoshi came up with, with good reasons. No, unlike many of Bitcoin’s features, this one was almost arbitrary and clearly meant as a temporary measure.
Summa summarum, I agree we shouldn’t try to solve all transaction use cases with Bitcoin direct. However even taking that into account, 1MB is not enough.
Personally I see the 20MB as a great compromise. It does not affect full nodes requirements in any significant way and this has already been proven. And it allows the base network itself to handle at least a decent amount of transactions.
Some common issues regarding the increase in block size
Transaction Fee Death Spiral
In common economics, when scarcity is high, so is demand. Therefore, many bitcoin enthusiasts believe it is essential to maintain the block size limit (limiting the transaction amount creates scarcity) in order to create demand and avoid transaction fees going to zero. However, the economic theory states that in a competitive market, supply, demand, and price will find an equilibrium.
Centralization Death Spiral
In order to run a fully-validating node client, a complete copy of the public ledger must be kept up-to-date. If the block limit size was increased to an arbitrarily large amount, only entities with access to large data centers will be able to support the network. We will inevitably be required to rely upon large institutions to support the network, resulting in Bitcoin’s biggest fear – centralization.
Block Subsidy, Fees, and Blockchain Security
The block size limit of 1MB currently supports approximately 7-transactions-per-second. The concern is if the transaction fees will draw enough mining power to secure the network as the block reward reduces over time. Those in favor of increasing the block size support the argument by saying transaction fees will be lower, but more transactions will generate more fees.
Hard fork Bitcoin: Controversy over increasing the bitcoin block size resurfaces
May 4th, 2015 | Amith Nirgunarthy
0
Hard fork Bitcoin
Gavin Andresen recently updated his Github account with code he is testing to increase the block size limit to 20 mb from 1 mb today. In typical fashion, the bitcoin community got very emotional and heated responses ensued on reddit. It is no surprise that Gavin is moving in this direction and has been very vocal about this plan for sometime now.
In response to one reddit user’s comments, Gavin stated “it is intended as ‘it is time to discuss this now.’ I will be writing a series of blog posts in the coming week or two responding to objections I’ve heard.”
This is a big deal as the change in code would require a hard fork, which if accepted would render miners who do not upgrade to be useless.
What is a hard fork?
A hard fork happens when a new version of the full node client accepts blocks as valid that previous versions would have rejected as invalid. The moment such a block gets submitted to the live network, the new clients will accept it and build on that chain, whereas the old clients will reject it and start building on a different block at that height, at which point the two networks are operating on different longest chains (hence fork). – From reddit user d4d5c4e5
The Bitcoin wiki has a page dedicated to keeping a “Hardfork Wishlist” to record changes to Bitcoin that might be desirable, but that will require a “hard” block-chain split (everybody must upgrade, old software will not accept blocks/transactions created with the new rules, considering them to be invalid blocks).
So it is safe to say hardfork discussions have been around for a while, but it seems many vocal members of the community look at hardforks with great suspicion.
Technom4ge comments from reddit
I understand your arguments. I don’t see Bitcoin necessarily needing to aim at Visa transaction counts directly either. However Bitcoin does need to reach the amounts of regular wire transfers / SEPA directly and currently it simply doesn’t cut it.
The 1MB limit is not some holy grail Satoshi came up with, with good reasons. No, unlike many of Bitcoin’s features, this one was almost arbitrary and clearly meant as a temporary measure.
Summa summarum, I agree we shouldn’t try to solve all transaction use cases with Bitcoin direct. However even taking that into account, 1MB is not enough.
Personally I see the 20MB as a great compromise. It does not affect full nodes requirements in any significant way and this has already been proven. And it allows the base network itself to handle at least a decent amount of transactions.
Some common issues regarding the increase in block size
Transaction Fee Death Spiral
In common economics, when scarcity is high, so is demand. Therefore, many bitcoin enthusiasts believe it is essential to maintain the block size limit (limiting the transaction amount creates scarcity) in order to create demand and avoid transaction fees going to zero. However, the economic theory states that in a competitive market, supply, demand, and price will find an equilibrium.
Centralization Death Spiral
In order to run a fully-validating node client, a complete copy of the public ledger must be kept up-to-date. If the block limit size was increased to an arbitrarily large amount, only entities with access to large data centers will be able to support the network. We will inevitably be required to rely upon large institutions to support the network, resulting in Bitcoin’s biggest fear – centralization.
Block Subsidy, Fees, and Blockchain Security
The block size limit of 1MB currently supports approximately 7-transactions-per-second. The concern is if the transaction fees will draw enough mining power to secure the network as the block reward reduces over time. Those in favor of increasing the block size support the argument by saying transaction fees will be lower, but more transactions will generate more fees.
presence
Member
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2011
- Messages
- 19,330
Gavin Andresen Proposes 20 MB Block Size: Pros and Cons
scalability - What are the arguments for and against
Great technical discussion of block size increase issues on ...
Peter Todd said 20MB blocks would cause the orphan rate ...
Ongoing Debate on Proposal to Increase Bitcoin Block Size
Elastic block cap with rollover penalties - Bitcoin Forum
[Bitcoin-development] Block Size Increase
Last edited:
presence
Member
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2011
- Messages
- 19,330
the vision Satoshi outlined in the original whitepaper
I see pres sold and is trying to scare the price down with big bolded letters that mean nothing.
Stop making it look scary. It's not scary. Each fork is running in tandem live right now. XT is a backup just in case larger blocks are needed before March 2016.
The new path is not 20MB, it is 8MB. In 2018 it then becomes 16MB. Miners will always get on board when needed just as they did in Feb of 2013.
Samsung is showing off 16TB SSD drives now. I wish people would shut up about this non-issue. Little bear kiddie children with just a couple coins on twitter are being overly obnoxious about it as they pump their uber tiny market cap shitcoins.
Stop making it look scary. It's not scary. Each fork is running in tandem live right now. XT is a backup just in case larger blocks are needed before March 2016.
The new path is not 20MB, it is 8MB. In 2018 it then becomes 16MB. Miners will always get on board when needed just as they did in Feb of 2013.
Samsung is showing off 16TB SSD drives now. I wish people would shut up about this non-issue. Little bear kiddie children with just a couple coins on twitter are being overly obnoxious about it as they pump their uber tiny market cap shitcoins.
Last edited:
Dianne
Account Closed
- Joined
- May 29, 2007
- Messages
- 6,995
I again ask Mods to take this thread down. Presence, aka litepresence is a "pay to play" business and should be purchasing advertising space on this forum, rather than trolling here freely to take advantage of new crypto investors. There is a place on btc-e where he can troll freely. But RPF should be a sanctuary of like minded, freedom loving spirits who can feel safe among friends.
Why even bother posting this when there is zero evidence that this is actually Satoshi? Nobody in the crypto community takes this seriously.
djthistle01
Member
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2014
- Messages
- 76
almost there
but the crappy thing is i am away for another week and only have spotty internt. LP, we dooming till the week before the blood moon or not? 252 should be a bounce. but this is all looking pretty poopy right now.
Yep, exactly. Why post something so obviously fake? Satoshi broke his 4 year silence over this? Gimme a break. Really disappointed in the direction this thread has gone.
presence
Member
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2011
- Messages
- 19,330
Does it have to actually be satoshi to represent and good or bad idea?
http://www.livescience.com/38561-channeling.html
Does it actually have to be satoshi to be in the spirit of satoshi?
Last edited:
presence
Member
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2011
- Messages
- 19,330
At the moment I'm actually holding; a split of DRK LTC and BTC
Honeybadger is still in "Capitulation".
With this insight; I'm trading down as I have time to personally manage and see opportunity.
I held the 3.08 DRK shelf for as long as I could.
Now I'm washing 500 DRK a day at the margins headed down; goal to turn an extra 10-50 coins a day.
Likewise positions in BTC and LTC.
The fork is THE issue on everyone's mind right here. I posted pertinent information.
The other main issue is Bitlicense.
Neither of these are bullish fundamentals. But the rumor has passed and at some point soon we'll rally on the news that all is actually well.
Last edited:
No it doesn't have to be Satoshi for it to be a good or bad idea. But the same thing has been argued by many already, and posting the one from "Satoshi" with big bold-ass letters serves no purpose other than to scare people or have them believe it is actually Satoshi.
presence
Member
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2011
- Messages
- 19,330
The purpose here being simply that the post is a topic of discussion that is "viral" and making rounds in bitcointalk, reddit, and twitter. I'm making no claim as to its authenticity; simply reposting for reference. I highlighted the name because that's the reason its making rounds.
You people need to get off the crypto-paranoid "everyone is out to get you" bandwagon, its unbecoming and certainly misplaced on me.
At least you were open about this part.
You aren't alone in your actions but you contribute to the culture of paranoia, something some people thought they could escape from a little on RPF. You've admitted to being a deceitful person. That's the takeaway view a lot of ppl have of you now. Posting fake satoshi quotes in giant text just contributes to all of this.
People don't view this thread as honest advice anymore. Activity has really died down. I don't blame them.
Last edited:
Warrior_of_Freedom
Member
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2008
- Messages
- 8,454
btc is under $260, noooooo the sky is falling
does this have to do with that company selling all the NY btc?
does this have to do with that company selling all the NY btc?
Last edited:
Dianne
Account Closed
- Joined
- May 29, 2007
- Messages
- 6,995
Quote Originally Posted by presence View Post
You people need to get off the crypto-paranoid "everyone is out to get you" bandwagon, its unbecoming and certainly misplaced on me.
Quote Originally Posted by presence View Post
...(I) begin trolling at BTCe a few hours after honeybadger trades, after I know all my people have executed trades. ...I felt obliged to let my paying clients get their emails and dump first.
You people need to get off the crypto-paranoid "everyone is out to get you" bandwagon, its unbecoming and certainly misplaced on me.
Quote Originally Posted by presence View Post
...(I) begin trolling at BTCe a few hours after honeybadger trades, after I know all my people have executed trades. ...I felt obliged to let my paying clients get their emails and dump first.
Dianne
Account Closed
- Joined
- May 29, 2007
- Messages
- 6,995
The quote from litepresence that muh_roads posted above is what really bothers me. litepresence admits to being a troll, and I've seen him several times trolling at btc-e linking this thread at Ronpaulforums.com to give his expert advice on ltc/btc investments. Now we know it is all trolling, and about ripping people off.... including members of ronpaulforums.
When a RPF member intentionally cheats, robs, misrepresents other RPF members, for the benefit of his or her own greed; their despicable actions should not go rewarded. His paying membership status came easy, as he ripped off half this forum... not once, or twice, or three times; but multiple times. And he uses this forum to induce others into buying into his game.
What ever he paid for his "supporting membership status"... I'll double it, if you kill this thread and prevent future victims. My money will come from my pocket, and not from the spilling of blood and guts from fellow Paul supporters.
Originally Posted by presence View Post
...(I) begin trolling at BTCe a few hours after honeybadger trades, after I know all my people have executed trades. ...I felt obliged to let my paying clients get their emails and dump first.
When a RPF member intentionally cheats, robs, misrepresents other RPF members, for the benefit of his or her own greed; their despicable actions should not go rewarded. His paying membership status came easy, as he ripped off half this forum... not once, or twice, or three times; but multiple times. And he uses this forum to induce others into buying into his game.
What ever he paid for his "supporting membership status"... I'll double it, if you kill this thread and prevent future victims. My money will come from my pocket, and not from the spilling of blood and guts from fellow Paul supporters.
Originally Posted by presence View Post
...(I) begin trolling at BTCe a few hours after honeybadger trades, after I know all my people have executed trades. ...I felt obliged to let my paying clients get their emails and dump first.
Last edited:
I haven't been keeping up. You referring to Genesis Mining?
