Cool! Lets see how long this thread stays up. See you on /r/Bitcoin_uncensored and /r/BitcoinXT ...

Maybe this is a little paranoid, but the next step in escalation would be trying to destroy the pro-XT user community by kicking off all unwanted users from here or somehow getting them banned on reddit (I don't know what reddit is possible in this direction under reddit rules). This is why I posted a GPG key to https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoin_uncensored/comments/3hamve/collect_and_publish_digital_identities_of_users/. Is someone collecting digital identities somewhere?

On another note, Peter R., did you have a look at my PMs on reddit?

So this thread is called 'Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.' and if I remember correctly (I am not really too active here, because I find the organisation of this board too streneous and overloading for my mental bandwidth...) it has been about all kinds of things Bitcoin but not about the blocksize for most of its 1500+ pages of existence. Even when assuming the mod's twisted rules, how does moving this thread make sense?

More kinks to iron out. Peter R.'s submission dropped off the 'news' page of /r/bitcoin_uncensored again, complete and suddenly - as opposed to just slowly moving down under the influx of new posts.

Weird.

EDIT: Back up again. Here's the mod replying to my question for the 2nd auto(?)mod:

    from SatoshisGhost [-1][M] via /r/bitcoin_uncensored/ sent a minute ago

    I just approved it. Not sure what happened before. Please confirm you see it now.

    permalinkreportblock usermark unreadreplyfull comments

Yes, that's a very good point I just did that, messaged /r/bitcoinxt and u/fast5alive for /r/bitcoin_uncensored (the latter because I simply forgot that messaging all mods of a subreddit exists as a functionality).

Probably just kinks to be ironed out. Interesting times!

EDIT: bitcoin_uncensored is approved. Just got this:

   from fast5alive sent a minute ago

   yes, the pdf link triggered automod. I've approved it. thanks!

Thank you, now I need to read all what you wrote there

With regards to them showing up nowhere: This is indeed getting strange. I was eagerly waiting and I admit I repeatedly reloaded bitcoinxt and bitcoin_uncensored. Nothing shows up.

It is probably too early to be this paranoid, but: Are we getting played and strung along by people even more hideous than we can imagine? Pulling us into essentially dead and controlled subreddits? Can anyone with subreddit experience explain this?

Cool, thank you!

I hope you are right and I don't get banned from bitcoin_uncensored even for spamming

Reposted: https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoin_uncensored/comments/3hd6rj/new_blocksize_bip_user_configurable_maximum_block/

EDIT: It vanished again from 'NEW'?! That is some serious misconfiguration of SPAM filters or something. Peter, can you try posting this?

Our good guy theymos answered immediately. I also pushed it to /r/Bitcoin_uncensored. Interestingly, it completely disappeared from the 'new posts page' on Bitcoin_uncensored, and that page seems to be unordered. Is this a subreddit configuration issue?

Any post I did on /r/Bitcoin, I always could see slowly descending on the 'new' tab, and all of them were ordered by time there. Do you know how this new subreddit works?

You are probably right: Except for a few who immediately understand it and are enthusiastic, it seems to invoke an 'odd feeling' for many so we have to sell this better. There might, of course, also be many legitimate concerns, but I want to try to get more than a 'no reaction' to this, eventually

More visuals are a great idea, though I think we still need to ponder about this and figure out how to do that exactly.

Yes, done, thank you. Here is the post on /r/Bitcoin:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3hcrmn/new_blocksize_bip_user_configurable_maximum_block/

and here on /r/Bitcoin_uncensored:

https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoin_uncensored/comments/3hcs6o/new_blocksize_bip_user_configurable_maximum_block/

Fully agreed. To add to this: This situation exists even today with 1MB blocks. A node might only support 900kB blocks on average bandwidth- or cpu-wise (e.g. some old ARM board) and will drop off when the network actually moves to Mike's cliff hy saturating at 1MB.

Also: Maybe we should add it to the BIP draft even, or at least reference this?

That said:

Can I push my BIP proposal to reddit with you as the author in it? I don't want to cause any larger confusion and want your explicit permission first

Thank you! I specifically worded it like I did because I think it only has a chance of adoption by staying as neutral as possible. Default == no limit won't fly with the Blockstreamers, but at least with the current edition, it should get them sweating for answers that do not eventually point to them being some bogus authorities.

And don't get me wrong: I agree on the issue of lack of user education. We need to make sure as the community then that new full node operators do not shoot themselves in the foot.

And, yes, personally if this ever gets accepted, I will argue for putting in a very high value (and maybe I should add a suggestion for a a 'max' setting?) with any new full node operator that I might interact with.

So, again, yes, I completely see your point, but I think this variant is the only one neutral enough to have a chance at acceptance or at least stirring things up. And before I get accused of being an agent of chaos by saying 'to stir things up': I mean it in the sense of furthering the blocksize discussion.

Hi folks,

as announced and also proposed by Peter__R around here, I created the draft what should become a BIP on Bitcoin/Core for a completely user-defined limit.

Note that I didn't ask Peter__R yet but put him into the document as an author - so do not take it as his endorsement!

The link to the PDF is here:

https://github.com/awemany/bslconfig/releases/download/first-draft/bslconfig.pdf

And here is the link to the github repo, feel free to fork it and make it better (for example, fix the language of this non-native English speaker):

https://github.com/awemany/bslconfig/

I am looking forward to any feedback on this!

EDIT: I am sorry, new to github 'releases'. Links should work now!

Is there a way to get the mod situation on /r/Bitcoin fixed?
If not, is there a way that any mod action could be stored for reference somewhere, so that there is at least a visible trail of what happened?

BTW: Just curious, and maybe our BIP is not needed anyways, but did you have a look at my comment with regards to not-quite hard forking?

Hey Peter, I am in the process of writing a draft of what might become a BIP, hopefully can push something (very early & incomplete) to github soon to serve as a start on this. While further thinking about the whole blocksize mess, I had the following idea and I do not know whether it has been discussed yet:

The intend is to make the block size limit (BSL) configurable, command line or edit box, with eventually no default. The next step along this line would be - when thinking about BSL as an agreement that must be reached through communication of all interested parties - to have a BSL that can be dynamically and on-line set from outside the Bitcoin core software with something like a 'BSL governor', for example through a secured JSON-RPC call 'setmaxblocksizelimit'. Such as an external program that weights the input of several miners through their twitter feeds for example (not that twitter would be particularly good way to do it), or someone else might implement a scaling limit depending on a moving average or even anything noone even thinks of right now.

Now, what I noticed is that, to some extend, the hard fork/no hard fork split is a false dichotomy: Esentially, we have chain splits all the time in the way of orphans. An enduring chain split will only happen if people value two chains, or at least the survival of 'their' chain more than having a common agreement and single money system. (This is, by the way, a core incentive in Bitcoin, as laid out by Satoshi back then.)

Now, with 'BSL governors', there would be no need to make this a hard decision 'orphan/no orphan this block because I dislike the size of a block in this chain'. Instead, a full node could make its decision softer: Its BSL governor could for example look at the hash power longest chain, and say: I'll limit blocksize to 1MB when there is no hash power longest chain with more than 5 blocks (or any other figure) ahead of the 1MB one I am on.

This way, the full node would create a disincentive for miners to make bigger blocks, while still allowing it should the need for a larger blocksize be strong enough. Miners will have an incentive to tread carefully, dipping their toes, for example with 1.1MB blocks first, and full nodes can weight their needs by choosing a trade-off between influence on miners and their local chain reorg risk. This would make what you call a 'gray limit' and I think is very *visible* to the user and also *flexible*.

Thoughts?

I'd be willing to help! But I'd also suggest to just make it about the configurable setting and leave the rest to the user. I think signalling about blocksize has to happen out-of-band for the time being. Because it is potentially a lot of code complexity. And simple IMO beats complex here.

Just make it mandatory to start bitcoind with -maxblocksizelimit (or similar) and have an edit box for bitcoin-qt that has to be filled with a value. The amount of code change should be about the same as BIP101.

Start requesting this value at some switchover date in the future - maybe at the beginning of Gavin's increase schedule. Reason for this: Time for user education on building a function Bitcoin network.

What do you think?

YES! See also here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3eaxyk/idea_on_bitcoin_mailing_list_blocksize_freely/

Instead of a pull down menu, I would favor a free form text field without any default. (For policy neutrality)

Pushes the responsibility and the power to set this limit back to the user - where it belongs.

Is this referring to the blocksize debate? I wouldn't call victory yet. We have pretty good chances to end the blockade and hijacking, but there is still a lot of convincing to do!

I'll say we won when we have a thousand blocks or so on the high block limit chain.

This is actually a great argument! I think you are completely 100% correct here, but to have another strong case for the blocksize increase, what we would need to have here is some data on actual usage patterns of Bitcoin to support this argument.

Did someone already extract 'typical spending patterns' vs. 'typical investment patterns' from the Blockchain?