I had explained that BSVs theory (of miners converging on an adaptive block size) is nonsense.
Not BSV's theory. Bitcoin's.
There was no block size cap in the original bitcoin protocol, and one was only added to mitigate an attack vector which is no longer economically viable.
Incorrect.
This was already discussed upthread. You refuse to read the thread and then pop in at the end of the thread to make statements which are incongruent with all the prior discussion.
The following linked post is where I had (upthread) quoted Satoshi and explained precisely why you are incorrect:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5147618.msg51390187#msg51390187And here follows a link to the post where I replied in great detail on the subject in a response to
@jbreher:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5147618.msg51440603#msg51440603For the record, the following is what I believe forms the core of Shelby's argument about the block size and immutability from the above quoted post:
See, here's the kicker, Shelby. Let's set aside the issue that -- given enough time and incentive -- the difference between hard and soft forks are merely academic. Set aside the issue that further increases to the max block size are impossible due to immutability. The fact is that the original protocol (i.e., satoshi's 0.1 protocol) -- which you refer to as immutable -- had no 1 MB max block size cap.
At 0.1 there was no block size limit in the protocol. The code (not the protocol) was limited in that no provision had yet been coded to allow a block to span multiple TCP segments. But even that limitation was well in excess of 1MB.
Satoshi was very, very, very clever. Which is to be expected because he is/was (a think tank of) the global elite.
He made it appear that he added the 1 MB later as an after thought, but of course he planned it from the beginning. He knew that Bitcoin would start out centralized and grow more decentralized. He knew that eventually the centralized block size limits as a default in the reference client would eventually be insufficient to contain the forces of profit motive.
I believe he absolutely never intended to raise the 1 MB. And that he absolutely intended for there to be a 1 MB limit from the inception when he launched Bitcoin. You are free to believe whatever you want.
Nevertheless the fact is that there was a de facto centralized limit on the block size even before he added the 1 MB hard cap to the code. It was the default in the client.
So what you claim to be an "immutable" protocol has already undergone a change in the exact dimension you claim it cannot.
Nope. When Satoshi wrote v0.1 he was implicitly referring to what he was in centralized control over. The 1 MB cap was there from the start, in his head. He had the default which was lower than 1 MB and he was watching and waiting until he had to make his move. He made it. Then he disappeared. Simple as that.
Now I am not arguing against your claim of centralization pressure. But as pointed out above, the exact same pressures are being felt on all public PoW blockchains. Not only BSV, but BCH, BTC, 0.5.3, whatever.
Nope. Not on real, immutable Bitcoin.
Which, if I am not mistaken, essentially boils down to 'Satoshi always had a 1MB limit - it was in his head from the start, so it was operative from the start. Just trust me on this'.
I ain't buying it. Insufficient evidence presented to support such a conclusion.
Although I'm sure this point will result in another interminable time sink of a sidebar. If it ends up -- as I expect -- seeming tangential, I'll just demur in advance.