Quote from: NewLiberty on July 14, 2015, 09:26:28 PM

Quote from: Adrian-x on July 14, 2015, 07:24:12 PM

Quote from: NewLiberty on July 14, 2015, 05:58:11 AM

Quote from: Adrian-x on July 14, 2015, 05:47:48 AM

Quote from: NewLiberty on July 14, 2015, 12:42:48 AM

The block size limit is a short term hack. Someday we might get beyond such a limit, but it could be quite a while. BIP100 looks promising though.

"a short term hack" is how I see it, what concerns me is developers appear to be leveraging it to push through other hacks. (hacking the hack - postponing indefinably until such time as other hard fork changes could be bundled in with this one.)

BIP100 is good in that it removes the hard fork limit, my reservations though are that it does nothing to erode the centralized control system that has evolved. I prefer Bib 101 as it implies some central gate keepers need to eat humble pie, however nether are my first choice.

At this stage I'd like to start seeing more decentralized development, the notion that Bitcoin is resilient in that if the protocol is modified the ideals will never be eroded because it is open source and can be forked to keep the original intent appears to only be valid so long as we share the same motives as the centralized development team.

The very idea of forking that was originally proposed to protect Bitcoin Values was vehemently opposed by the centralized developers who expressed disdain that they were not consulted and their process for seeking permission to propose change was not adhere too, even going so far as calling the idea of forking to remove the hard limit a threat to the very success of bitcoin.

I think there is a distortion of perception and lack of empathy all round. ultimately it is the people who put economic energy into the idea that make it viable, and while developers are all important, they are not the gods who conduct this experiment, its the people who put in there economic energy.

Your reasoning is interesting to me. Mostly because your evaluation appears to contradict your conclusion. And so, I suspect you have a some well thought out ideas and nuances that you've not yet communicated.

Both 100 and 101 provide a mechanism for more block size. Choosing between the two may depend on your perspectives and assessment of different risk levels within the operating groups.

Do you see more centralized control among developers or miners?
- If development is more centralized, BIP100, (developers giving controls to miners).
- If mining is more centralized, BIP101, (developers retaining control over block size increases and schedules).

Both remain fairly centralized, though both are less so than they previously have been. From your discourse, it would seem your evaluation would be the devs are more centralized and so would favor BIP100, (irrespective of who authored it).

I'm not sure I see the contradiction, my understanding is based on the situation we have now and it's a typical political one.

The moment we started to see mining pools and solo miners contributing hashing power with little regard to hard forks is when this trajectory started, I cant remember what the BIP was back in 2011/2, where miners had to choose which fork to support, back then I didn't care as it was the fundamentals that were important to me and that wasn't considered one given my limited understanding back then. ( i just supported my "political mining pool by giving them my vote" to use as they saw fit.)

anyway I think all developers need a reason to develop and I'm happy with the idea that some will be commercial, however developers are just developing the code that runs the protocol. The people that invest in Bitcoin invest because they understand the incentive structure that makes the protocol possible.

Bitcoin is more about the network of current users than it is about the code, changing the code and protocol to appeal to old world industrious is not how we should be working, we want them to change to adopt Bitcoin.

I may be underestimating the concerns with centralized mining but I dont see it as an issue, miners will always mine the bitcoin that has the most users, and that typically is misunderstood as the most nodes, so long as miners do not have a say in changing the incentives in the protocol I see no problems moving forward with larger blocks. (Blockstream have crossed this line)

I am concerned that development is very centralized just a handful of people determine the code that runs on almost 99% of nodes, I favor many implementation of the code, not just Core, so in my view BIP100 and BIP101 are a political compromise to keep centralized development in the hands of a few.

BIP100 essentially takes the block size it out of the hands of developers and gives it to the miners. They will decide if it grows or not.
BIP101 keeps block size as a centrally managed resource, pre-determined by developers, and if modification up or down is needed, it would need to be done by developers.

The weighting of your discussion suggests the developer centralization is a more serious concern, which suggests that BIP100 would be a strong favorite for you.

Personally I like BIP100 more also just because it does not have the hubris to attempt to predict what future changes to block size may be best suited for the protocol, and leaves those decisions to the future folks who will know better than we could possibly do now.
I also like that it decentralizes the management of the decision to the miners, which to me is a fine place for it.

That you favored BIP101 was the surprising part for me, I don't see why that would be the case considering your concerns.

you put it all so distinctly I enjoy the time you take to simplify your thoughts and you have my motives pity much pined.

I agree with the sentiment in bold, however as I understand BIP100 doesn't decentralize the management of block size it puts it in the control of the majority of miners, miners in the future could be having this same debate but in the context of market imbalances, political pressure or geographical restraints that could serve to pit one group of miners against the another.

The majority of miners may choose to limit block size because they have slow internet - or because some for profit company will facilitate or offer additional revenue through Merge Mine SideChains if they agree to limit block size to force transactions off chain (they could even earn more revenue than competing for the same transactions on Bitcoin transactions)

I think the best outcome is for the full diversity in economic imbalances to play out in mining, and miners find the balance in the economiccs of risks and benefits of whatever gives them a competitive advantage, but they need to compete in a free market space free of coercion.

In effect miners should have 100% autonomy in the size of the blocks they produce, the majority of miners should not have the ability to collude. As I see it BIP100 would allow the majority of miners to set the block size, where in fact I want the incentives to encourage all miners to make small blocks but without limit should they feel it would be more competitive.

miners in my view are the most marginalized group in bitcoin, they are condemned to eek out the smallest viable profit on top of the cost of the utility of securing the network and the transactions in it, as block rewards diminish, this is by design.

This feature is not widely discussed but ultimately its an environmental concern, in the most fantastic of outcomes, it comes down to how much of the earth resources should be invested in securing the money supply, and the answer that makes the most sense is the minimum necessary to ensure its integrity, most other schemes in fact all iterations that I've cared to explore are less efficient from and environmental impact perspective, than storing secured transactions on the block-chain. that dosent mean there is no need for LN or SC, or other variants but they need to compete in a free market not a planed one.

BIP101, is not ideal, I'd rather have no limit, but it seemed the limit could grow faster than the Bitcoin network grows. and I like the fact that "eight" (八 Pinyin: bā) sounds similar to the word which means "wealth" in Chinese, and we have eight doubling so it should be appalling to those who are governed by superstition.