Eric Lombrozo [2:51 PM]
r/btc *wants* to be angry

[2:52]
stop trying to take that away from them!

[2:55]
we all know the whole hard fork mania started out as personal grudges and very little of it is based on fact

[2:57]
people take up all sorts of causes - not all of them really make sense, but to the people taking up the cause it seems to be their life's purpose

chek2fire [3:19 PM]
is there anyone left to r/btc?

[3:19]
i think this subreddit is dead

eragmus [3:26 PM]
@chek2fire Haven’t checked in a while. Sure hope their mania is fizzling out finally. Hopefully they found something better to do with their lives.

bashco [3:26 PM]
It's not dead yet. It gets momentary bursts of activity whenever nullc drops by to give them something to lose their heads over.

chek2fire [3:27 PM]
the most of them are bots

eragmus [3:27 PM]
@bashco Lol they’re quite literally like immature (undeveloped brain) children.

bashco [3:29 PM]
/r/btcfork on the other hand is looking pretty dead.

[3:30]
I think they came up with a logo and decided the rest was just too much.

eragmus [3:31 PM]
@bashco Lollllll :x

[3:31]
BIG blocks now?

risho [3:33 PM]
roger ver is gaining steam. he's starting to lose it i think

moli [3:34 PM]
he's gaining and losing steam at the same time?

risho [3:34 PM]
he's losing his sanity

[3:34]
and gaining steam

[3:34]
or steem i guess :stuck_out_tongue:

moli [3:34 PM]
sometimes i do wonder if the radiation in japan has got to his brain cells

risho [3:34 PM]
his posts are becoming seemingly more frantic

eragmus [3:36 PM]
@risho Well he won’t listen to reason, so what can we do.

moli [3:36 PM]
this:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_effects_from_the_Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster

[3:37]
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-human-consequences-of-the-fukushima-dai-ichi-nuclear-power-plant-accidents/5478670

risho [3:46 PM]
i don't think anyone needs to do anything. he's either going to force through a hardfork which won't work for him or he's going to divest into altcoins.

[3:46]
and the sooner the better

chek2fire [3:47 PM]
nah

[3:47]
i think he will stay forever in bitcoin

[3:47]
he is too long to crypto world to know that every altcoin is a shitcoin without any real value

risho [3:48 PM]
he's already started divesting into altcoins. he's said that in the past month he's diversified into altcoins for the first time in years

[3:48]
because of his uncertainty surrounding bitcoin

Jim Rissier [3:50 PM]
Nobel prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz should not comment on bitcoin, which he obviously does not understand.

Eric Lombrozo [3:50 PM]
a little bit of diplomacy a year ago could have prevented all this - but I had no idea how furious he was over things that back then I didn't even bother with - i.e. arguing on reddit

[3:51]
I think he's in too deep now, though

eragmus [3:51 PM]
Yeah, stuck in a vicious cycle.

Eric Lombrozo [3:52 PM]
a year ago I naively thought that the mailing list was the appropriate forum for technical discussions on protocol change, not reddit

risho [3:54 PM]
the guy is being incredibly grandiose thinking that he as a self proclaimed non-technical person can decided the direction of a very fragile ecosystem. him and his band of 16 year olds think they know how everything should work. it's insane. and it's sad because i really want to like roger ver but he is making it impossible.

Eric Lombrozo [3:55 PM]
I made an impassioned case for things in that mailing list - which opponents didn't even bother to read

[3:55]
as did many others

[3:56]
by the time I realized our opponents weren't even bothering to actually research what we did, a war had broken out

eragmus [3:56 PM]
@risho The thing is he actually does consider himself well-versed technically, and moreover, he considers “economic factors” to be more important right now.

[3:57]
e.g. Fear of BTC losing its network effect-based dominance

Eric Lombrozo [3:57 PM]
roger self-rationalizes things after-the-fact. he didn't start out as extremist in his hard fork stance...but it melded with his personal grudges against theymos, etc...

[3:57]
now he can't separate the two

Jim Rissier [3:58 PM]
amazing how some people who have never developed any software,  have the arrogance to tell what to do,  to those who have!

risho [3:58 PM]
he considers himself well versed in economics, not in computer science, based on my readings of what he's said. much like vorhees.

eragmus [3:58 PM]
@risho He has also tried rationalizing how he’s technically versed. (edited)

moli [3:58 PM]
oh that is childish, @elombrozo, and i've seen his friends tweeted him telling him stuff like "roger, i do worry about you, you're not being rational"... so don't blame yourself for what you didn't do, roger is a grown man but if he wants to be infantile, nobody can stop him

peter_r [3:59 PM]
But is Bitcoin a software experiment, an economics experiment, a social experiment, or all three? (edited)

eragmus [3:59 PM]
@peter_r All 3, but this does not mean it’s decided/assumed/clear that raising block size at a fast rate —> more users + higher growth.

peter_r [4:00 PM]
Fair enough.

Jim Rissier [4:00 PM]
to call it experiment is a put down, since it is actually working and being used.

eragmus [4:00 PM]
@peter_r It also doesn’t mean that raising block size willy nilly will preserve the decentralization traits that currently make it valuable to those who most value it (those who require that it remains resistant to gov. influence). (edited)

peter_r [4:00 PM]
Agreed.

[4:01]
But would you agree that the economics are equally important to the technological aspects of Bitcoin?

eragmus [4:01 PM]
@peter_r Sure, everything plays a role.

peter_r [4:01 PM]
That it's not strictly an "engineering project"?

risho [4:01 PM]
the whole "we must scale on chain" is just fundamentally flawed. even if the block size was removed entirely bitcoin still wouldn't scale indefinitely on chain. we would still need layer 2 either way.

eragmus [4:02 PM]
@peter_r I mean, some would disagree with me, and say that “organic adoption” based on users coming to it at their own pace based on BTC’s merits is what matters… and that we should not try to “optimize growth” per se.

peter_r [4:02 PM]
risho: well nothing can scale "indefinitely."

risho [4:02 PM]
it doesn't even scale "well" on chain

peter_r [4:02 PM]
But can it eventually scale to a p2p electronic cash system for the world's 7 billion people?

risho [4:03 PM]
on chain probably not

[4:03]
unless you centralize it into datacenters

peter_r [4:03 PM]
eragmus: yes, I agree that organic growth is what we want.

shinobimonkey [4:04 PM]
:confused:

[4:04]
yes peter_r, it can scale

[4:04]
if you scale it in layers, and don't ram everything onto the main chain

eragmus [4:05 PM]
@peter_r Hmm, I would too, but I don’t think for example ‘marketing’ is something to leave aside, and just let people magically dream of BTC and its traits, and realize they need to use it. So, I don’t necessarily believe in totally organic adoption. I think marketing should be incorporated in some manner (kinda like Roger’s thinking on this about how growth should occur at its potential).

shinobimonkey [4:05 PM]
which is what people need to stop trying to do to help it scale

[4:05]
marketing should have nothing to do with Bitcoin, if you have a product that uses Bitcoin, market your product

[4:05]
don't market Bitcoin

[4:06]
and don't try to market your product assuming you can use leverage to force changes onto Bitcoin because "Weeelll, all these people want it."

eragmus [4:06 PM]
For example, one could ‘market’ BTC to investment funds. Or, one could market to users who would find it valuable (goldbugs, DNM-ers, etc.). (edited)

shinobimonkey [4:06 PM]
if Bitcoin cannot handle users you on board through your product, that is a problem with your product design, not Bitcoin itself

eragmus [4:07 PM]
^ Right, and that’s where @peter_r you may be unclear?

[4:08]
We should not change BTC to accommodate more users.

[4:08]
That defeats the purpose.

[4:08]
You don’t turn BTC into PayPal because you “need” more growth at all costs.

peter_r [4:08 PM]
From my point of view, increasing the block size limit would keeping bitcoin the same.

[4:08]
But I see how some disagree with that.

shinobimonkey [4:08 PM]
well, most users apparently think you are dead wrong

[4:09]
and I would go so far as to say you are dead wrong, and that is a fact, not an opinion

[4:09]
it is changing an important security variable, which is in itself *a change*

[4:09]
you cannot change something, in anyway, and call it the same

[4:09]
that is doublespeak

eragmus [4:10 PM]
@peter_r It’s literally not possible to raise block size at some fast rate/amount, and yet keep resource consumption as it is now. If that’s not possible, then logically, it means full nodes will be kicked off the network. If this happens, then it means BTC is becoming less accessible to users, since right now at least, the idea is every user should at least have the OPTION to run a full node, even if they don’t want to run one right now. Why? Because “full node” = ability to validate txs, and be an economic participant (set rules for the network).

peter_r [4:10 PM]
Right,  but if the system moves from a state where the average block size << the limit, to a new state where the average block size ~= the limit, then that's a change too.

Eric Lombrozo [4:11 PM]
there are two significant problems - that's just one of them. the other is that we lack a mechanism for changing that parameter that won't almost certainly lead to a chain fork

shinobimonkey [4:11 PM]
no peter_r, you are conflating the system rules with system behaviors

Eric Lombrozo [4:11 PM]
if you want to try out a different parameter, you're welcome to launch an alt

shinobimonkey [4:11 PM]
seriously, I am not going to play these games today

[4:11]
you are redefining words and playing with doublespeak

peter_r [4:12 PM]
I think people who view bitcoin mostly as software see "changing" the block size limit as the dominant change.

Whereas people who view bitcoin mostly as economics see "changing" the supply/demand rules as the dominant change.

[4:12]
To different lenses to view the same problem.

shinobimonkey [4:12 PM]
it is mostly software peter_r, its a protocol enforced by software

[4:12]
that is a *fact*

[4:12]
not opinion

eragmus [4:12 PM]
@peter_r You can argue this, but what about my argument?

peter_r [4:12 PM]
Sorry, there's been a flood of comments. Which argument?

shinobimonkey [4:12 PM]
seriously peter_r, you are being completely intellectually dishonest

eragmus [4:12 PM]
@peter_r Viewing it as economics does not change the fact that being able to run a “full node” changes according to resource consumption.

shinobimonkey [4:12 PM]
its not even funny

eragmus [4:13 PM]
@peter_r This: https://bitcoincore.slack.com/archives/general/p1473289851001712
 eragmus
@peter_r It’s literally not possible to raise block size at some fast rate/amount, and yet keep resource consumption as it is now. If that’s not possible, then logically, it means full nodes will be kicked off the network. If this happens, then it means BTC is becoming less accessible to users, since right now at least, the idea is every user should at least have the OPTION to run a full node, even if they don’t want to run one right now. Why? Because “full node” = ability to validate txs, and be an economic Show more...
Posted in #generalSept 7th at 4:10 PM

Eric Lombrozo [4:13 PM]
guys, this is all assuming we even have a mechanism to change that parameter that will not result in a chain fork

[4:13]
if you're going to fork the chain, launch an alt

shinobimonkey [4:13 PM]
you don't "view it" as economics peter_r, you analyze how its *users* economic behavior changes

[4:14]
the network is, the protocol is, 100% *software*

[4:14]
that is a fact

[4:14]
the economic aspects of this network are the *user behaviors*

eragmus [4:14 PM]
It doesn’t matter if he wants to see it economically; it doesn’t change that doing this is kinda like side-stepping the issue… since the effects of such a change remain the same. Resource consumption still rises, and hence barrier to entry still rises.

peter_r [4:15 PM]
eragmus: I agree with most of that.  Indeed, ceteris paribus increases to the average block size reduces the fraction of nodes that can "keep up."

Eric Lombrozo [4:15 PM]
Core devs got unfairly blamed for "not allowing Bitcoin to scale" when in fact anyone can launch a chain with different rules if they aren't happy...and trying to change the rules of Bitcoin in controversial ways will just result in chain forks

[4:15]
it's just how the system works

[4:15]
stop blaming people for laws of nature

bamb0u [4:15 PM]
but btut big blowks?

peter_r [4:16 PM]
Eric: agreed that people shouldn't be blamed for laws of nature.  This is an important point.

bamb0u [4:16 PM]
fukn @peter_r still not giving up on his charade. blabla "agree" blabla "gif"

[4:17]
"important point" XD

peter_r [4:17 PM]
eragmus: but I think we view the importance of maintaining CONOP very differently.

chek2fire [4:18 PM]
@peter_r take a time to watch this lecture

[4:18]
it will educate you how a blockchain system works

[4:18]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AikLs1P4_PA
 YouTube spiros spiros
8   3   Stakeholders  Who’s in Charge


[4:18]
especially what is it governance

Jim Rissier [4:18 PM]
running a full node makes your bitcoin tx safe and permission less.
increasing the block size would make it impossible or very difficult!
hence increasing the block-size is not good for bitcoin. (edited)

eragmus [4:19 PM]
@peter_r What’s CONOP?

peter_r [4:19 PM]
cost of node option.

[4:19]
Fluffypony gave a talk on that at the OnChain scaling conference this summer.

[4:19]
I assumed you guys used that abbreviation a lot.

bamb0u [4:19 PM]
no you the smart guy :wink:

chek2fire [4:20 PM]
what happen to the propose that "ethereum can handle many transactions and that is the future of payment" ?

[4:20]
is dead for them?

peter_r [4:21 PM]
@check2fire: I agree with most of that talk.

shinobimonkey [4:21 PM]
"CONOP" is one of the most important metrics in a blockchain system peter_r

chek2fire [4:21 PM]
@peter_r but it seems you dont understand it

shinobimonkey [4:21 PM]
especially concerning decentralization

chek2fire [4:21 PM]
bitcoin is not democratic system

[4:21]
is completly anarchist

peter_r [4:21 PM]
Yes agree

chek2fire [4:22 PM]
even if you convice 99% to follow you

[4:22]
there will always be the 1% that will fork away from you

eragmus [4:22 PM]
@peter_r I explained in the original ‘argument’ why CONOP matters. It’s a fundamental part of how BTC currently operates.

peter_r [4:22 PM]
What's wrong with 1% forking away?

chek2fire [4:22 PM]
nothing

[4:22]
for that reason bitcoin works like that

[4:22]
or open source works like that

Eric Lombrozo [4:23 PM]
we should firmly establish the precedent in Bitcoin that the original chain will be the one that does NOT hard fork

eragmus [4:23 PM]
@peter_r If the ‘full node’ based system evolved and became less reliant on ‘full nodes’, then maybe CONOP’s importance could change. Make sense?

Eric Lombrozo [4:23 PM]
if you want to fork away, fine

chek2fire [4:23 PM]
if you disagree with something you simple fork and create a new chain or a new code

Eric Lombrozo [4:23 PM]
the only rare exception would be an uncontroversial change

[4:23]
a protocol fix that is fundamental

Aaron van Wirdum [4:24 PM]
It's a nice logo though.
 bashco
I think they came up with a logo and decided the rest was just too much.
Posted in #generalSept 7th at 3:30 PM

peter_r [4:24 PM]
@eragmus: A lot of "big blockers" would disagree.  They would say that the average person doesn't need to run a node.  That at as long as there are many nodes in multiple jurisdictions and geographic locations, that's OK.  Even if those nodes are mostly run by businesses, universities, governments, and "power users."

Eric Lombrozo [4:24 PM]
regardless of how great you think your hard fork is, if it is controversial you need to launch it as an alt

Aaron van Wirdum [4:24 PM]
I like their logo.

Eric Lombrozo [4:24 PM]
that goes for ALL of us

[4:24]
none of us are exempt from that rule

peter_r [4:24 PM]
check2fire: yes I agree with all of that.

[4:25]
In which way do you think I disagree?

shinobimonkey [4:25 PM]
well then peter_r...

moli [4:25 PM]
@peter_r : if you want bitcoin nodes to be run by the govt, why should we have bitcoin? visa and paypal can do much better

sambiohazard [4:25 PM]
how is that p2p?
 peter_r
@eragmus: A lot of "big blockers" would disagree.  They would say that the average person doesn't need to run a node.  That at as long as there are many nodes in multiple jurisdictions and geographic locations, that's OK.  Even if those nodes are mostly run by businesses, universities, governments, and "power users."
Posted in #generalSept 7th at 4:24 PM

shinobimonkey [4:25 PM]
they can go start their own network, where no one runs their own node

[4:25]
and see how well that works for them

Eric Lombrozo [4:25 PM]
can we please allow peter_r to try out his huge blocks - but also agree that it will not be called bitcoin?

shinobimonkey [4:25 PM]
thats what I just told him to do pretty much

[4:26]
you wanna see how a network runs with no one running nodes, go ahead peter_r

[4:26]
thats not happening with bitcoin

mrhodl [4:26 PM]
Guys. You fell for it!

peter_r [4:26 PM]
Eric: like chec2fire said, Bitcoin is anarchist.  How can we know ahead of time whether the big block chain will or will not be called bitcoin?

sambiohazard [4:26 PM]
also what is the value proposition of such a blockchain against fiat? (edited)

mrhodl [4:26 PM]
I felt for it yesterday!!

shinobimonkey [4:27 PM]
peter_r: because logic

Eric Lombrozo [4:27 PM]
many of us have had craploads of hard fork ideas we'd love to see done - but we don't do it because it will fork the network

shinobimonkey [4:27 PM]
its the chain that *didn't fork*

Eric Lombrozo [4:27 PM]
and if we do do it we do it as an alt

[4:27]
or a sidechain

peter_r [4:27 PM]
Are you making an ethical argument, then?  I'm not quite following.

Eric Lombrozo [4:27 PM]
it's really simple: if you change the rules of Bitcoin in incompatible ways, you have to choose a new name for your network

peter_r [4:28 PM]
That we shouldn't encourage nodes and miners to accept larger than 1 MB blocks?

moli [4:28 PM]
@peter_r : are you pretending you don't understand?

[4:28]
@peter_r why are you here again? are you trolling?

sambiohazard [4:28 PM]
yes that is what he do and uses unknown short forms when he is cornered in an argument

[4:29]
btw @peter_r can you answer my questions?

peter_r [4:30 PM]
It seems to me that we all agree that Bitcoin is "anarchist" and it can't really by governed in a conventional way.  But it seems that you guys are saying that we should all agree to some "ethics" that we all agree exactly what the rules are and never try to change them.  Is that correct?

mrhodl [4:30 PM]
Nope

[4:30]
I think you should definitely fork off!!

Eric Lombrozo [4:30 PM]
you can change the rules - but then it's a different network (unless you can get EVERYONE to agree)

risho [4:30 PM]
you can try to get the miners to do whatever you want. it just won't be bitcoin

Eric Lombrozo [4:30 PM]
it's just how decentralization works

[4:30]
get used to it

peter_r [4:31 PM]
Eric: isn't that just semantics?  Let's say a chain with blocks greater than 1 MB becomes longest, and most people are using it an calling it Bitcoin.  How can you prevent that?

Eric Lombrozo [4:32 PM]
it's a social convention

[4:32]
but one that we should firmly establish

sambiohazard [4:32 PM]
He has superpower of avoiding question he cant answer.
 sambiohazard
btw @peter_r can you answer my questions?
Posted in #generalSept 7th at 4:29 PM

Eric Lombrozo [4:32 PM]
it is not enforceable legally

[4:32]
"longest chain" doesn't determine what is bitcoin

doffing81 [4:32 PM]
@sambiohazard to be fair he has quite a few peeps to deal with

Eric Lombrozo [4:32 PM]
it's "longest chain according to the rules"

[4:33]
you also have to follow the rules

peter_r [4:33 PM]
Right.  It's a social convention.  And one I also disagree with.  To me it's obvious that if most people are using a chain with > 1 MB blocks, and if those people are calling it Bitcoin, then it's Bitcoin.

sambiohazard [4:33 PM]
@doffing81 nah he selects very well

peter_r [4:33 PM]
@sambiohazard: can you repeat your question?

risho [4:33 PM]
being able to force through controversial hard forks sets a horrible and dangerous precedent (edited)

sambiohazard [4:33 PM]
https://bitcoincore.slack.com/archives/general/p1473290724001791
 sambiohazard
how is that p2p?
Posted in #generalSept 7th at 4:25 PM

[4:34]
and https://bitcoincore.slack.com/archives/general/p1473290805001800
 sambiohazard
also what is the value proposition of such a blockchain against fiat?
Posted in #generalSept 7th at 4:26 PM

Eric Lombrozo [4:34 PM]
can we please destroy the myth that longest chain by itself determines network state? miners have no say on getting rid of rules

peter_r [4:34 PM]
risho: haven't we agreed that you can't force a hard fork?  Because users who want to stick with the "original" chain can always do so?

[4:36]
sambiohazard: I view SPV wallets as still P2P.  I guess if you think you need to run a full node then you'd disagree.

[4:36]
I would say the "most likely to win" chain determines the network state.

Eric Lombrozo [4:36 PM]
http://blockhawk.net/presentations/EricLombrozo_ValidationCosts_Montreal2015_v3.pdf

sambiohazard [4:36 PM]
SPV w/o fraud proofs, how is that p2p, you are trusting someone else

Eric Lombrozo [4:36 PM]
this was over a year ago, this presentation

[4:37]
we still have these same problems

[4:37]
if we were to focus on fixing these problems instead of all this forking nonsense perhaps we could make some good progress :wink:

sambiohazard [4:38 PM]
@elombrozo there he said it, he thinks that SPV is p2p so no validation problems, although that doesn't change reality (edited)

Eric Lombrozo [4:38 PM]
look at slide 17

shinobimonkey [4:39 PM]
sambiohazard: why validate anything at all right?

[4:39]
I mean everyone's good at heart anyway/s

sambiohazard [4:39 PM]
yeah why use bitcoin at all just use USD

[4:39]
or USDcoin

risho [4:39 PM]
that is true. but forcing a controversial hardfork and trying to call it the same thing is akin to co-option.

sambiohazard [4:40 PM]
so we agree that BU should be an altcoin

moli [4:40 PM]
oh i hope they fork already

risho [4:41 PM]
you can do whatever you want, but you should be clear to distinguish yourself by not calling yourself the same thing.

moli [4:41 PM]
make an alcoin, man, so we can short it

eragmus [4:41 PM]
@peter_r Bitcoin is a “peer 2 peer” network. Full nodes set economic policy, as well as allow one to validate transactions. So, how can a network run only by “power users” still be considered a p2p network? — It seems like the banking system is essentially a “power user”-run network, so why is this something to aspire to? Bitcoin was created as a contrast to the banking system.
 peter_r
@eragmus: A lot of "big blockers" would disagree.  They would say that the average person doesn't need to run a node.  That at as long as there are many nodes in multiple jurisdictions and geographic locations, that's OK.  Even if those nodes are mostly run by businesses, universities, governments, and "power users."
Posted in #generalSept 7th at 4:24 PM
(edited)

sambiohazard [4:42 PM]
nah SPV FTW, i belieb in SPV

[4:43]
@peter_r btw why would i use bitcoin if i am trusting merchants, govt & banks, isnt it easier to use USD

[4:44]
why would i ever leave current system and change whole underlying infrastructure and learn new things?

[4:47]
i think i shouldn't wait for him to answer, should rather read & try to understand #ircbridge-core-dev

shinobimonkey [4:48 PM]
hmm..

[4:48]
what are they talking about syncing TX and witness data up and verifying as fast as possible?

[4:52]
I only peaked :stuck_out_tongue:

sambiohazard [4:52 PM]
and that reminds me of something about critical peer review as well: https://medium.com/@peter_r/satoshis-vision-bitcoin-development-scaling-conference-dfb56e17c2d9#.52le1txi3
 Medium
Satoshi’s Vision: Bitcoin Development & Scaling Conference
Sunday, September 25, 2016 | Westin St. Francis, San Francisco
Reading time
----------------
2 min read

(757KB)
Sept 6th at 10:44 AM


Eric Lombrozo [4:55 PM]
can we also please stop it with these claims to divine satoshi's will or that his will even matters

[4:55]
it's not only a logical fallacy - it is arrogant and presumptuous

doffing81 [4:56 PM]
yeah "Satoshi's Vision" = disgusting

moli [4:59 PM]
yes it is

[4:59]
please don't keep reposting the disgusting thread

[4:59]
they act like Satoshi is going to be there

eragmus [5:00 PM]
I think I see Satoshi’s ghost hovering near the chandelier.