The LTB Network Forum

Upcoming Bitcoin Hard Fork & /r/bitcoin censorship

Back to Bitcoin & Beyond

Comments

• adam

  

  Offline
  Posts: 1980
  Location: California, USA

  @cherapple

  I'm still left wondering, however (as someone who has less of a technical understanding): Where are the nodes in the equation? They are unpaid, run by volunteers, decreasing in number all the time, and not discussed on the same level that miners are discussed. Are they less important, or "becoming less important as it becomes easier to connect to the network" (as one person recently explained to me)? Do they matter in these block-size, hard-fork, consensus decisions?

  The nodes basically aren't in this equation, LTB and Tokenly run full nodes and we are defensively switching to XT (not immediately) because XT will be compatible with Bitcoin Core and XT while Core will not be compatible larger XT blocks whenever they happen.

  Nodes are passengers, they pay their own way and don't have any say in the journey. People talk about wanting to change that so the incentives align better to support more nodes but so far it's just talk.

  Posted on August 16, 2015 at 11:07 AM
  Permalink
  1 like
• cryptowanderer

  

  Offline
  Posts: 4
  Location: South Africa

  @adam, for the record, after hours of trawling the interwebs, I'm 100% behind LTB's and Tokenly's decision to go with the fork. It's far from an ideal situation, but this is what robustness is all about.

  If you want to do that question with both camps, I'm sure folks would be interested, but I also have my doubts about constructive engagement from the classic camp.

  Posted on August 16, 2015 at 11:07 AM
  Permalink
  0 likes
• IvanB

  

  Offline
  Posts: 113
  Location: New York

  @jayek I'm in agreement that we need to scale to the larger block size, but does anyone else feel the fork is a bad idea and should be implemented in core. Not so much an issue with the tech, but the general public perception and confidence in Bitcoin in as a whole, regardless if it's Core/XT. I think the way this has played out is bad for Bitcoin.

  If core wants to implement larger blocks, then it can - XT doesn't stop this from happening although it potentially does hasten the process.

  Posted on August 16, 2015 at 11:12 AM
  Last Edited: August 16, 2015 at 11:13 AM
  Permalink
  0 likes
• shmadz

  

  Offline
  Posts: 10

  @ivanb

  @jayek I'm in agreement that we need to scale to the larger block size, but does anyone else feel the fork is a bad idea and should be implemented in core. Not so much an issue with the tech, but the general public perception and confidence in Bitcoin in as a whole, regardless if it's Core/XT. I think the way this has played out is bad for Bitcoin.

  If core wants to implement larger blocks, then it can - XT doesn't stop this from happening although it potentially does hasten the process.

  Agreed. Also, XT (BIP 101) is not the only way to do larger blocks. Jeff Garzik's BIP 100 outlines a much safer, and saner, way to increase block size, in my opinion.

  note - it is also much more ambitious, but definitely worth the read to get some background to the problem that needs to be solved

  Posted on August 16, 2015 at 11:26 AM
  Last Edited: August 16, 2015 at 11:39 AM
  Permalink
  0 likes
• IvanB

  

  Offline
  Posts: 113
  Location: New York

  @adam The nodes basically aren't in this equation, LTB and Tokenly run full nodes and we are defensively switching to XT (not immediately) because XT will be compatible with Bitcoin Core and XT while Core will not be compatible larger XT blocks whenever they happen.

  Nodes are passengers, they pay their own way and don't have any say in the journey. People talk about wanting to change that so the incentives align better to support more nodes but so far it's just talk.

  I'm not sure that I fully agree with this. Full nodes run by users, merchants and other miners are all that stops miners from creating fake transactions, double spends, arbitrary coinbase rewards, etc. Individually a single full node means nothing to anyone except the owner. Collectively, if miners believe that there are enough full nodes in agreement with the rules a miner operates by then that miner has a better chance of having their work accepted and their incentive rewards made more valuable by this acceptance.

  Posted on August 16, 2015 at 11:43 AM
  Permalink
  0 likes
• adam

  

  Offline
  Posts: 1980
  Location: California, USA

  @ivanb

  @adam The nodes basically aren't in this equation, LTB and Tokenly run full nodes and we are defensively switching to XT (not immediately) because XT will be compatible with Bitcoin Core and XT while Core will not be compatible larger XT blocks whenever they happen.

  Nodes are passengers, they pay their own way and don't have any say in the journey. People talk about wanting to change that so the incentives align better to support more nodes but so far it's just talk.

  I'm not sure that I fully agree with this. Full nodes run by users, merchants and other miners are all that stops miners from creating fake transactions, double spends, arbitrary coinbase rewards, etc. Individually a single full node means nothing to anyone except the owner. Collectively, if miners believe that there are enough full nodes in agreement with the rules a miner operates by then that miner has a better chance of having their work accepted and their incentive rewards made more valuable by this acceptance.

  I think my analogy carries through, you're talking about all the passengers boycotting to cause the network to correct itself. That's just not the state 99.999% of the time.

  Posted on August 16, 2015 at 11:53 AM
  Permalink
  0 likes
• IvanB

  

  Offline
  Posts: 113
  Location: New York

  Actually, I wasn't suggesting a 'passenger boycott' although that is a potential tool for change. I'm merely referring to a check and balance sharing of power - miners create blocks, nodes verify and users decide upon value of tokens.

  Posted on August 16, 2015 at 12:18 PM
  Permalink
  0 likes
• MaxEntropy

  

  Offline
  Posts: 28

  Eli and Adam have offered reasonable sounding positions, but neither develop software. This is not negative criticism.

  --

  From what I have seen on Reddit and here... most commenters are not developers or people who have lived through research, design, development and the bug fix and support cycle. I will retract this for Adam, as he must know about these issues re: Tokely and his website.

  From what I can see is that there is precious little research in Bitcoin Core. Precious little software testing other than say unit testing by developers.

  It is a remarkable achievement that Bitcoin runs as a commercial product. This is attributable to the developers and to the Satoshi team.

  --

  I would accept Hearn's statement re: the Medium article if the fork was:

  1: if the code change was specifically for Block Size code change only, and 2: that developer permissions for the new fork would be identical to those of Bitcoin Core

  But therein lies the rub. The permissions are not the same. The Bitcoin XT now have control.

  --

  It is always about control.

  --

  In closing , it again remarkable that product decisions are determined vocally in Reddit. Surely, the Bitcore Core and BlockStream developers have insight and knowledge that Reddit does not.

  Posted on August 16, 2015 at 12:29 PM
  Permalink
  0 likes
• cryptowanderer

  

  Offline
  Posts: 4
  Location: South Africa

  In closing , it again remarkable that product decisions are determined vocally in Reddit.

  Not being a developer either, I feel very wary wading in here, but isn't the reason we're having this debate here exactly because people have been censored from being vocal on Reddit?

  I agree the Core devs should have insight us lackeys lack, but still haven't found any articles from them that Andresen hasn't rebutted well. Although Garzik's BIP100 protocol seems interesting, going through it now.

  Posted on August 16, 2015 at 12:55 PM
  Permalink
  1 like
• JayeK

  

  Offline
  Posts: 378
  Location: Canada

  @adam

  @jayek I'm in agreement that we need to scale to the larger block size, but does anyone else feel the fork is a bad idea and should be implemented in core. Not so much an issue with the tech, but the general public perception and confidence in Bitcoin in as a whole, regardless if it's Core/XT. I think the way this has played out is bad for Bitcoin.

  You have described the position it sounds like Gavin/Mike found themselves in, thinking larger block sizes are important and wanting to do it through core but being unable to because any developer with commit access has veto power. This is the core of the issue it seems and what led us to where we are now.

  My issue with XT is that it's not just making a technical decision, it's the abandonment of a process that could harm bitcoin at it's core, no pun intended. :)

  The consensus of the bitcoin engineers being dismissed to a much smaller, controversial team with these changes scares me.

  Posted on August 16, 2015 at 1:10 PM
  Permalink
  0 likes

Post Reply