Re: BlockStream or BitcoinXT? Those are your choices, gentlemen.
I don't have an interest in BlockStream at all. I think the threat of a hard fork with only approximately 75% of the mining power and with a significant portion of the community against it is very dangerous.
How fortunate that a real life logician should appear! I look forward to a very PRECISE and CLEAR discourse! Indeed, I am willing to have a structured debate on Debate.org which allows voting on the winner and constrains the discussion between the two parties. Let me know if you like the idea.
I feel doing nothing about the block size limit is very dangerous for Bitcoin. If nothing else, Bitcoin XT is forcing us to have this hard discussion before the problem becomes real and derails Bitcoin from the path of mass adoption.
It seems clear to me that the reason "a significant portion of the community [is] against it" is because there is not a consensus among the developers. And it seems clear to me that the reason that there is not a consensus among the developers is because there are many developers who are heavily invested in BlockStream and other such solutions to the problem and thus have large financial incentive to appose a block size increase which would essentially undermine the work they have been doing as a solution to the scalability issue of a 1 MB block limit. I am not opposed to their solutions, I am opposed to the notion that we should depend ONLY on these solutions and not also increase the block size. I think we should do both and all.
I am in agreement with you that the threat of a fork with a significant portion of the community against it is dangerous, and I don't want to see bitcoin split into two different chains, that is the LAST thing I want. But as you see the problem as the proposal by Gavin and Hearn, I see the problem as the developers who dogmatically oppose block size increase because they are financially incentivized to keep the 1 MB block limit.
It is like how cops actually require crime, though you'd think their goal should be to eliminate crime. In the same way the developers of BlockStream require a low block size, though you'd think they'd support the elimination of the block size problem. If we had consensus with the developers, we would not have this large portion of the community that opposes it so religiously.
Quote
Regarding BlockStream, it's clear that much of the Bitcoin community finds them controversial. It's also clear that they're doing some groundbreaking research, and that this research would apply to other cryptocurrencies than Bitcoin. Perhaps BlockStream should just implement their ideas for Litecoin and leave it to those in control of XT to develop what Bitcoin is to become. Would you find that preferable to the current situation?
I am not against BlockStream. I am fine with their idea. I think we should increase the block size, and I think we should also have BlockStream and Lightening and other innovations. Those of us who want to increase the Blocksize are not saying we should not have Blockstream, but those of you who want Blockstream are saying we should not have a block size increase. It is you who are doing the censoring.
Quote
I'm not sure what you would consider a "logical argument." As a logician, I'm inclined to interpret it literally, but I suspect it's not what you intended. A logical argument is a deduction starting from some axioms and leading to a conclusion. In your post you actually referenced two different possible conclusions: XT should be opposed. vs. The block size should not be increased. Now, it should be easier to give a logical argument for why XT should be opposed, since if someone already shows the block size should not be increased, then it logically follows that XT should be opposed.
Of course, it's impossible to conclude that XT should either be opposed, supported or even ignored unless we start from some axioms. This gets to the root of the issue. Different people have different fundamental beliefs about what Bitcoin is and what it should be.
Often I've seen the argument that Bitcoin should be censorship-resistant way for individuals to control their finances free from government control. We could take this as an axiom. Another axiom could be that for a cryptocurrency to remain censorship-resistant it is vital that it can be safely run behind Tor. Finally, we could add an axiom that states that some of the new code in Bitcoin XT makes it difficult to run Bitcoin XT safely behind Tor. With axioms like these, and possibly some more, we could chain together a logical argument ending with "XT should be opposed." I'll flesh out the details of the argument upon demand.
Now, of course, you could say it isn't a logical argument because you don't accept one or more of the axioms, but this is not a criticism of the argument. It's a criticism of the axioms. I could give many logical arguments (and for a reasonable donation I'd be willing to formalize them), but you could always reject the conclusion by rejecting some axioms used. That's just how logic works.
Of course, it's impossible to conclude that XT should either be opposed, supported or even ignored unless we start from some axioms. This gets to the root of the issue. Different people have different fundamental beliefs about what Bitcoin is and what it should be.
Often I've seen the argument that Bitcoin should be censorship-resistant way for individuals to control their finances free from government control. We could take this as an axiom. Another axiom could be that for a cryptocurrency to remain censorship-resistant it is vital that it can be safely run behind Tor. Finally, we could add an axiom that states that some of the new code in Bitcoin XT makes it difficult to run Bitcoin XT safely behind Tor. With axioms like these, and possibly some more, we could chain together a logical argument ending with "XT should be opposed." I'll flesh out the details of the argument upon demand.
Now, of course, you could say it isn't a logical argument because you don't accept one or more of the axioms, but this is not a criticism of the argument. It's a criticism of the axioms. I could give many logical arguments (and for a reasonable donation I'd be willing to formalize them), but you could always reject the conclusion by rejecting some axioms used. That's just how logic works.
In order for me to accept these axioms I require more information. What about XT exactly "makes it difficult to run Bitcoin XT safely behind Tor"? Why is it vital that it can be safely run behind Tor? (is this the core argument against XT?)
I agree that if "it is vital" that Bitcoin can be safely run behind Tor, and Bitcoin XT "makes running behind Tor impossible" then it would logically follow that "XT should be opposed." However you did not say that XT makes running behind Tor impossible, you said it just makes it "more difficult", and as I know not a single person who even has thought about the reasons for running behind Tor, I find that the benefits of XT outweigh the difficulties it may cause to run behind Tor, considering that running behind Tor would still be possible and thus not eliminated. The people who want to run behind Tor will find a way to do so, even if it is difficult to do. This, as you say, "vital" ability remains preserved under XT and therefore "XT should not be opposed". Even though it makes it "more difficult."
Quote
You have certain axioms of your own that I've seen expressed in many places. An assertion that is often made by supporters of XT is that BlockStream wants to keep the block size limit in 1MB so they can make more profit. Using this as an axiom, and probably a few other axioms, one could probably logically argue that BlockStream has nefarious motives for opposing XT. However, even this wouldn't logically rule out the possibility that BlockStream (or, more precisely, the employees of BlockStream) have both nefarious and intellectually pure motives for opposing XT. The possibilities aren't exclusive. Maybe one could argue about whether their primary motive is nefarious or pure, as presumably there is only one primary motive. Logic forces one to be annoyingly precise.
You are correct that I harbor axioms of my own, but you project them falsely. My axioms have little to do with "opposing BlockStream" as you have suggested. My axioms have much to do with "supporting Bitcoin." I am heavily invested in bitcoin, and I believe that bitcoin is perhaps the greatest single innovation in technology that the world has ever seen. I want to protect bitcoin as much as I want to protect this planet and my own life. An axiom I might have is that Bitcoin cannot achieve mass adoption with the arbitrary block limit of 1 MB. I can conceive of a world wide event that might insight a large leap into bitcoin, suddenly flooding the network with new traffic and transactions, in such an event, with the current block limit, I submit that new users would experience extremely looong confirmation times, high network latency on the magnitude of several hours, transactions may never be confirmed, fees may become unbelievably high, and such a situation would lose all confidence in the Bitcoin project, and we might see a new alt coin arise to replace Bitcoin as the dominant crypto currency. As I am in support of bitcoin, I want to see Bitcoin succeed in the event of mass adoption, and thus I support XT or any method for increasing block size as quickly as possible, as we may only have a few months to prepare for such an event.
I am not opposed to Blockstream or any of the other solutions, but I don't want to risk their not working or not being ready in the event they become our only hope, and so I support the implementation of an increase in the block size just as gavin and hearn are suggesting. And I agree that this should be brought up and discussed and debated NOW before it becomes too late.
As it stands I have no reason to oppose XT, and every reason to support it. But perhaps you can lead a breadcrumb trail of logic that I may follow towards the light and arrive at the conclusion, "XT should be opposed." I am open to being wrong. It may just be that I lack necessary information with which to arrive at the correct conclusion. If indeed I lack information, please inform me so I may arrive at the correct solution.
