I'm done rewarding your sophism for now.

You're conveniently ignoring the reality that reading, parsing, evaluating and responding to ideas requires an expenditure of scarce resources.

When people use sockpuppets, they can increase the resource expenditure of the people they are debating without increasing their own.

Debates involving anonymous parties is highly susceptible to denial of service attacks.

A person using anonymous sockpuppets can bombard the debate with multiple, contradictory positions in a way that they wouldn't be able to get away with if they had to attach the same identity to all their arguments.

It's a bullshit way to engage in a debate of this nature, and shows a profound disrespect for the positions they argue against, as well as insulting the intelligence of everyone involved by pretending that what they're doing isn't obvious.

You are free to use all the anonymous communication you want. You don't get to force people to pay attention to what you have to say.

If you're not willing to pay an accountability price for your arguments, then don't be surprised when other people are not willing to take on the cognitive burden of paying attention to them.

WTF???

I count two in favor, three against. How could that possible be viewed as the sort of consensus the core developers would need to act?

(I think you have the names slightly wrong, but that's not the point.)


Yuck. If you're going to fork, at least fork in a clean way.

After checking he actually says "Wladamir, Greg, and Pieter are opposed to it". But yeah nice try of you to throw LukeJr in there  

PS. I expected you to be above the all too common argumentum ad populum found amongst Gavinistas.

For future reference here's a post I digged up from reddit today that sums up well the idiocy behind juvenile comments such as "Thermos has been down voted into the ground on reddit"



Oh and btw good luck and have fun with your XTcoin

I now agree that when I said "we are no longer making progress," that I was being rhetorical.  It can be difficult to catch one's self doing this; for example, a reviewer edited out rhetoric in the proof for my paper which I didn't initially even see until it was pointed out to me.

That being said, I stand by my claims that:

1. The debate is mostly ideological at this point.

2. Whether we moved forward with BIP100, BIP101, BIP102, etc., the technical risk would be very low in all cases.

I'm defining the threshold for "low technical risk" to mean that in my opinion the chance that Bitcoin fails for another reason (e.g., lack of adoption due to a reduced block size limit) is significantly greater than the risk of a technical failure (again, based on my own assessment of the probabilities).  

All things considered, I see BIP101 as the lowest risk option (and much lower risk than doing nothing), if I factor in all failure modes.    

It's up, but I'd rather it be down. 

OK my memory on the names was wrong, who cares, that doesn't change the point that his fundamental sentiment is that bitcoin is decided by a small group of people, which is horrible.

That post you included above is utter nonsense as a reply. Thermos being downvoted into the ground is valid to point out because it demonstrates just how much the community disagrees.

And that is the thing you don't seem to understand, bitcoin is a community defined construct, it is whatever its users want it to be. Is is not defined by a FOMC like entity.

Thank you I will enjoy my bitcoin with millions of other users, you enjoy you blockstream fork away from satoshi's vision that we all signed up for.

tvbcof:  "woof, woof!":

https://bt.irlbtc.com/view/1064374.msg12105991#msg12105991

Can someone do the same for Bitcoin??

Great question.  

There's two cases to consider: (1) how an IBLT propagation mechanism will affect spam costs for an attacker, and (2) how it will affect the health of the fee market in general.  

1. IBLT will make spam proportionally more costly for an attacker, since the propagation efficiency of IBLT relies on partially synchronized mempools.  There's more on this here.

2. The paper viewed the IBLT scheme as a way to compress block solutions by some factor γ, where γ represents the coding gain. In this regard, it is similar to the compression already achieved by the Corallo Relay Network, only with a higher coding gain.  Assuming that block solutions are propagated across physical channels, and that the quantity of pure information communicated per solution is proportional to the amount of information contained within the block, then the communication time will always grow asymptotically like O(Q) as per the Shannon-Hartley theorem, and the fee market will be healthy.  In other words, as long as the block solutions contain information in the sense defined by Shannon (also called the Shannon Entropy) about the transactions they contain, then bigger blocks will contain more of it and, by the Shannon-Hartley Carrying Capacity Theorem, the communication speed has a fundamental lower bound governed by the laws of physics.

So to answer your question, my view is that IBLT would not affect the health of the fee market (but it would reduce the average fee per transaction).

This discussion relates to my main point of contention with Greg Maxwell.  In email correspondence, he suggested that it would be possible to have infinite coding gain for block solutions announcement. (I.e., he suggested that block solutions can truly be communicated in an amount of time that does not depend, even asymptotically, on the amount of transactions included in the block.  He said this is possible if what went into a block was already agreed upon far ahead of time [so that zero information needed to be communicated when the block was solved]).  I think the onus is on him to rigorously show:

(a) Under what assumptions/requirements such a communication scheme is physically possible.

(b) That such a configuration is not equivalent to a single entity¹ controlling >50% of the hash power.

(c) That the network moving into such a configuration is plausible.

Nevertheless, I've agreed with him to discuss this point of contention when I make the other corrections to my paper.  

¹For example, if--in order to achieve such a configuration with infinite coding gain--miners can no longer choose how to structure their blocks according to their own volition, then I would classify those miners as slaves rather than as peers, and the network as already centralized.

poor guy.. you are even more naive than I thought.

the point YOU (and quite a few here) dont seem to understand is that the reddit mob in no way, shape or form defines "the community".

if there is a consensus amongst anyone with half a brain it is that no sane discussions on the topic of the block size debate can be had over there. The post I included explain exactly while it is so.

now you can keep fooling yourself with delusions of community consensus or get a grip and realise that no amount of upvotes or downvotes will shift the balance in the outcome of this issue.