6 ms·

There is a small faction of the Bitcoin community working exceptionally hard to prevent any block size increase. I find their motives really baffling. They ha

by pmorici 10y ago

There is a small faction of the Bitcoin community working exceptionally hard to prevent any block size increase. I find their motives really baffling. They had some legitimate arguments a few years ago when discussion of this issue first started but those have all since been superseded by improvements in the protocol like xthin. They now resort to distasteful tactics by running anyone out of town that even so much as suggests a block size increase. They are also working overtime to censor any comments that challenge their world view on the /r/bitcoin sub reddit which is why you see such hostile comments mentioned by the OP in response to users asking about slow transactions. /r/bitcoin is now just an echo chamber where yes men regurgitate the agenda of a select few. Eeveyone else is shadow banned. edit: anyone that doubts this go make a comment in /r/bitcoin that contains the word "censorship" then view the page in incognito mode. The comment is immediately hidden by the automoderator. It really is nuts. Article about the history of censorship in /r/bitcoin https://medium.com/@johnblocke/a-brief-and-incomplete-history-of-censorship-in-r-bitcoin-c85a290fe43#.ihsr0xkhf https://medium.com/@johnblocke/a-brief-and-incomplete-histor...

knocte 10y ago
That's really baffling, I perceived quite the opposite.
- pmorici 10y ago
  Based on what? Can you name a single dev that expresses support for bigger blocks that hasn't been systematically ridiculed and excluded from Bitcoin Core development by the small block crowd? It isn't even possible to get an accurate perception of Bitcoin Unlimited support from reading the traditional Bitcoin discussion forums like /r/bitcoin because there is ZERO tolerance for discussion of bigger blocks unless it in a negative context.
  - dpc59 10y ago
    I'm pretty sure this was a sarcastic shitcomment. People who have a basic idea of how finance works understand that decentralized financial products lead to market making.
  - nadaviv 10y ago
    SegWit is a block size increase. Pretty much every developer in the bitcoin community supports SegWit.
    - lawn 10y ago
      > Pretty much every developer in the bitcoin community supports SegWit. Only in the censored outskirts. I recommend everyone to read John Blocke's articles: https://medium.com/@johnblocke/the-importance-of-clear-definitions-in-bitcoins-block-size-debate-f8ce550d0919#.i4vbed4ss https://medium.com/@johnblocke/the-importance-of-clear-defin... https://medium.com/@johnblocke/its-not-the-censorship-resistance-stupid-59a95e5f9b51#.2b1678j4o https://medium.com/@johnblocke/its-not-the-censorship-resist...
      - nadaviv 10y ago
        - 105 businesses and projects from the Bitcoin space support SegWit and are working on implementing it in their products: https://bitcoincore.org/en/segwit_adoption/ https://bitcoincore.org/en/segwit_adoption/ - 54 bitcoin developers signed the "capacity increase roadmap" published by Bitcoin Core: https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-core/capacity-increases https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-core/capacity-increases - 45 companies and individuals signed in support of Bitcoin Core: https://bitcoincore.org/en/supporters/ https://bitcoincore.org/en/supporters/ - 85% of the nodes on the network are running Bitcoin Core: https://coin.dance/nodes/share https://coin.dance/nodes/share All of that due to censorship in one subreddit, while there are multiple other forums that people talk in? I have to say, that's quite impressive.
        pmorici 10y ago
        The censorship isn't just in /r/bitcoin it also happens on the dev mailing list, on the bitcoin.org website, and on the BitcoinTalk forum. BitcoinTalk, /r/bitcoin, and bitcoin.org are controlled by the same person.
        jerguismi 10y ago
        Impressive numbers! Bad luck the only metric that happens to matters, miner vote, is still below 25% and seems to be going slightly down... http://bitcoin.sipa.be/ver9-10k.png http://bitcoin.sipa.be/ver9-10k.png
  - xorcist 10y ago
    That's a false premise. There is a block size increase when segwit activates. The debate is mostly if we should have a hard fork as well as (or even instead of) a soft fork. I think most developers are rightly scared of a hard fork, especially as we've seen what happened to Etherium lately. There was double spending as every node was not perfectly aligned with this. And then, contrary to expectations, the old chain survived. "Would you like to pay with Bitcoin Classic, Bitcoin Core or Bitcoin United?" That's not what anyone wants.
    - pmorici 10y ago
      The ETH / ETC situation was only possible because ETH has a much smaller block time than Bitcoin and the difficulty re-target happens every block instead of every 2016 blocks. The upshot for Bitcoin is that any chain with a minority of hashing power will die off. Dev's are just FUDing to keep control and scare people.
- joshontheweb 10y ago
  Can you expound on why? I'm interested in hearing both sides of this.
  - cloakandswagger 10y ago
    I've been an outside observer of the block size debate for a while now, so here is my naive take on it: The anti-block size increase camp says that increasing the block size is only a temporary fix, and that no blockchain can accommodate Visa levels of throughput. They also posit that any increase in the block size will make running a full node more difficult, meaning Bitcoin will become more and more centralized and consolidated around the big mining pools that have the hardware to handle bigger block sizes. However, many in the anti camp are pro segwit (segregated witness), a code change that does several things and is the first step to enabling off-chain networks like Lightning Network. These are basically pools of Bitcoins tracked by networks off the blockchain that would allow you to instantly exchange Bitcoins to anyone else in your network. This is a big problem for miners who have poured lots of money into their rigs, because now the blockchain would be little more than a settlement network. There would be far more transactions occurring off the network, meaning less money for miners. Again I'm no expert on this but this seems to be the crux of the debate. The Core developers seem to be OK with having the blockchain relegated to being a settlement network (similar to how Visa, your bank and merchants work together), but many people are opposed to this, partly because these off-chain networks would quickly form large central "hubs" which would obviate many of the benefits of Bitcoin (anonymity, privacy, security and decentralization).
    - Laforet 10y ago
      I've also been keeping tabs on the debate and I agree with you except on one account: Not everyone want the Bitcoin to be the next Visa or Paypal, some are perfectly content with a 10 minute confirmation delay as long as the blockchain remains fully distributed and anonymous, whereas others see a business opportunity that could make themselves rich and influential down the line. The entire narrative about larger block making the network more centralised is a red herring. The network has been going in that direction for quite some time without a block size increase and in any case, going from 1MB to 2MB or even 16MB isn't going to change the economics of running a full node that much, which is to say there are no incentives for non-miners to host a full node at all, regardless of the alleged computing and network overhead (and worse, it can make you a more likely victim of DDoS attacks[0]). The entire point about keeping the 1MB limit (which was meant to be a temporary cap anyway) is to artificially create scarcity in transaction capacity and coerce people into accepting SegWit and eventually fully functional side chains. This is probably fine for those who believe that A. Bitcoin will become mainstream and B. the ends justify the means, but I find this to be a very unethical position to take. Disclaimer: I don't own a single cent in BTC, nor do I have association with anyone involved in the Bitcoin scene. [0]:http://www.financemagnates.com/cryptocurrency/news/the-latest-victims-of-ddos-attacks-banks-and-bitcoin-xt/ http://www.financemagnates.com/cryptocurrency/news/the-lates...
steveklabnik 10y ago
> Eeveyone else is shadow banned. On reddit, only admins can shadow ban, and they claimed that they stopped doing it over a year ago, in my understanding.
- slaveofallah93 10y ago
  Subs can do a pseudo-shadowban by setting up automoderator to delete any comment you make automatically without explicitly banning you.
- pmorici 10y ago
  None of the comments I make in that sub seem to show up any more and the only reason I realized it is because I stopped getting any responses and checked from an incognito window. Sure enough nothing there. I know others who have experienced the same. Some people are outright banned as well.
  - cloakandswagger 10y ago
    I don't even bother with r/bitcoin anymore. The level of groupthink is insufferable, but hard for me to say whether it formed naturally or via direct influence (considering it's Reddit, both are likely)
    - pmorici 10y ago
      I agree. I think it is a natural consequence of the censorship. If you censor comments and ban users that dissent people take the hint pretty quick that diversity of opinion isn't welcome and look elsewhere. The one hope I have for this whole thing being resolved is that historically there are examples in Bitcoin of groups that were once very influential being superseded. Most notable is probably Ghash.io which had so much hash rate at the height of their power that people were afraid they could perform a 51% attack and that Bitcoin was doomed. Today they don't even register a percentage point.
decker 10y ago
Follow the money, it's not baffling at all.
- brokenmachine 10y ago
  Can you explain better? How does changing the blocksize affect the amount of money?
nadaviv 10y ago
I was sure you're talking about the chinese miners as I started reading your comment... The ones who oppose a block-size increase today are the miners and the anti-Core crowd. The rest of the bitcoin community, including its technical and business community, are pushing for an increase to 2MB blocks in the form of SegWit. And I think the "hostile comments" referred to by the OP are the non-stop personal attacks and toxicity that is happening on r/btc.
- pmorici 10y ago
  Your comment is a good example of the double speak and gas lighting I often see in /r/bitcoin
  - nadaviv 10y ago
    > Your comment is a good example of the double speak and gas lighting I often see in /r/bitcoin It would be a lot easier if people responded to the actual arguments being made, instead of throwing general accusations at people who're trying to have a rational discussions.
    - pmorici 10y ago
      I have responded to your actual arguments in other comments here. I just don't know where to start with this one. Your comment fundamentally misrepresents the position of what you term the "anti core crowd" and so it is hard to have a rational discussion when you can't even acknowledge the position of the other side of the argument. Miners want a hard fork block size increase. You claiming they don't is gas lighting. Core isn't providing it. Segwit is not a block size increase but it's supporters started branding it as one to better market it. That's the double speak part. It's false to call it a block size increase because it isn't. It isn't even guaranteed to increase transaction throughput which is the larger reason for wanting a block size increase. It actually encourages some types of large transaction by discounting the witness data.
      - nadaviv 10y ago
nadaviv 10y ago
You're painting a very unbalanced picture. > There is a small faction of the Bitcoin community working exceptionally hard to prevent any block size increase. This small faction is composed of nearly ~all the technical experts we have in the Bitcoin space, over 100 businesses and projects that support SegWit, the majority of bitcoin users that I'm personally familiar with, the majority of full-nodes on the network (~85%), and the vast majority by pretty much every metric you choose. https://bitcoincore.org/en/segwit_adoption/ https://bitcoincore.org/en/segwit_adoption/ https://bitcoincore.org/en/supporters/ https://bitcoincore.org/en/supporters/ https://coin.dance/nodes/share https://coin.dance/nodes/share https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-core/capacity-increases https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-core/capacity-increases > /r/bitcoin is now just an echo chamber where yes men regurgitate the agenda of a select few. r/bitcoin is the largest and most active bitcoin community by far. It had to start engaging in more heavy-handed moderation when the voting bots, sockpuppet accounts and other manipulation made it impossible to conduct productive discussions. Its sad, but I don't really see an alternative. https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4biob5/research_into_instantaneous_vote_behavior_in/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4biob5/research_in... https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/a-closer-look-at-reddit-vote-manipulation-about-bitcoin-1458682699/ https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/a-closer-look-at-reddit... https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3hf5z7/determining_manipulation_via_sock_puppet_accounts/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3hf5z7/determining... https://news.bitcoin.com/the-block-size-debate-and-sock-puppet/ https://news.bitcoin.com/the-block-size-debate-and-sock-pupp... https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/5n3wsw/birds_by_bitcoincom_get_paid_to_retweet_the/ https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/5n3wsw/birds_by_bitcoi...
- pmorici 10y ago
  You don't deny that censorship is taking place you are just rationalizing it by calling it "moderation". Lets be clear what is going on there goes way beyond what is commonly understood as moderation. They are systematically silencing a large segment of the Bitcoin community. If your side really had the support you claim the censorship wouldn't be needed.
  - nadaviv 10y ago

by pmorici 10y ago

knocte 10y ago

That's really baffling, I perceived quite the opposite.

pmorici 10y ago
Based on what? Can you name a single dev that expresses support for bigger blocks that hasn't been systematically ridiculed and excluded from Bitcoin Core development by the small block crowd? It isn't even possible to get an accurate perception of Bitcoin Unlimited support from reading the traditional Bitcoin discussion forums like /r/bitcoin because there is ZERO tolerance for discussion of bigger blocks unless it in a negative context.
- dpc59 10y ago
  I'm pretty sure this was a sarcastic shitcomment. People who have a basic idea of how finance works understand that decentralized financial products lead to market making.
- nadaviv 10y ago
  SegWit is a block size increase. Pretty much every developer in the bitcoin community supports SegWit.
  - lawn 10y ago
    > Pretty much every developer in the bitcoin community supports SegWit. Only in the censored outskirts. I recommend everyone to read John Blocke's articles: https://medium.com/@johnblocke/the-importance-of-clear-definitions-in-bitcoins-block-size-debate-f8ce550d0919#.i4vbed4ss https://medium.com/@johnblocke/the-importance-of-clear-defin... https://medium.com/@johnblocke/its-not-the-censorship-resistance-stupid-59a95e5f9b51#.2b1678j4o https://medium.com/@johnblocke/its-not-the-censorship-resist...
    - nadaviv 10y ago
      - 105 businesses and projects from the Bitcoin space support SegWit and are working on implementing it in their products: https://bitcoincore.org/en/segwit_adoption/ https://bitcoincore.org/en/segwit_adoption/ - 54 bitcoin developers signed the "capacity increase roadmap" published by Bitcoin Core: https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-core/capacity-increases https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-core/capacity-increases - 45 companies and individuals signed in support of Bitcoin Core: https://bitcoincore.org/en/supporters/ https://bitcoincore.org/en/supporters/ - 85% of the nodes on the network are running Bitcoin Core: https://coin.dance/nodes/share https://coin.dance/nodes/share All of that due to censorship in one subreddit, while there are multiple other forums that people talk in? I have to say, that's quite impressive.
      - pmorici 10y ago
        The censorship isn't just in /r/bitcoin it also happens on the dev mailing list, on the bitcoin.org website, and on the BitcoinTalk forum. BitcoinTalk, /r/bitcoin, and bitcoin.org are controlled by the same person.
      - jerguismi 10y ago
        Impressive numbers! Bad luck the only metric that happens to matters, miner vote, is still below 25% and seems to be going slightly down... http://bitcoin.sipa.be/ver9-10k.png http://bitcoin.sipa.be/ver9-10k.png
- xorcist 10y ago
  That's a false premise. There is a block size increase when segwit activates. The debate is mostly if we should have a hard fork as well as (or even instead of) a soft fork. I think most developers are rightly scared of a hard fork, especially as we've seen what happened to Etherium lately. There was double spending as every node was not perfectly aligned with this. And then, contrary to expectations, the old chain survived. "Would you like to pay with Bitcoin Classic, Bitcoin Core or Bitcoin United?" That's not what anyone wants.
  - pmorici 10y ago
    The ETH / ETC situation was only possible because ETH has a much smaller block time than Bitcoin and the difficulty re-target happens every block instead of every 2016 blocks. The upshot for Bitcoin is that any chain with a minority of hashing power will die off. Dev's are just FUDing to keep control and scare people.
joshontheweb 10y ago
Can you expound on why? I'm interested in hearing both sides of this.
- cloakandswagger 10y ago
  I've been an outside observer of the block size debate for a while now, so here is my naive take on it: The anti-block size increase camp says that increasing the block size is only a temporary fix, and that no blockchain can accommodate Visa levels of throughput. They also posit that any increase in the block size will make running a full node more difficult, meaning Bitcoin will become more and more centralized and consolidated around the big mining pools that have the hardware to handle bigger block sizes. However, many in the anti camp are pro segwit (segregated witness), a code change that does several things and is the first step to enabling off-chain networks like Lightning Network. These are basically pools of Bitcoins tracked by networks off the blockchain that would allow you to instantly exchange Bitcoins to anyone else in your network. This is a big problem for miners who have poured lots of money into their rigs, because now the blockchain would be little more than a settlement network. There would be far more transactions occurring off the network, meaning less money for miners. Again I'm no expert on this but this seems to be the crux of the debate. The Core developers seem to be OK with having the blockchain relegated to being a settlement network (similar to how Visa, your bank and merchants work together), but many people are opposed to this, partly because these off-chain networks would quickly form large central "hubs" which would obviate many of the benefits of Bitcoin (anonymity, privacy, security and decentralization).
  - Laforet 10y ago
    I've also been keeping tabs on the debate and I agree with you except on one account: Not everyone want the Bitcoin to be the next Visa or Paypal, some are perfectly content with a 10 minute confirmation delay as long as the blockchain remains fully distributed and anonymous, whereas others see a business opportunity that could make themselves rich and influential down the line. The entire narrative about larger block making the network more centralised is a red herring. The network has been going in that direction for quite some time without a block size increase and in any case, going from 1MB to 2MB or even 16MB isn't going to change the economics of running a full node that much, which is to say there are no incentives for non-miners to host a full node at all, regardless of the alleged computing and network overhead (and worse, it can make you a more likely victim of DDoS attacks[0]). The entire point about keeping the 1MB limit (which was meant to be a temporary cap anyway) is to artificially create scarcity in transaction capacity and coerce people into accepting SegWit and eventually fully functional side chains. This is probably fine for those who believe that A. Bitcoin will become mainstream and B. the ends justify the means, but I find this to be a very unethical position to take. Disclaimer: I don't own a single cent in BTC, nor do I have association with anyone involved in the Bitcoin scene. [0]:http://www.financemagnates.com/cryptocurrency/news/the-latest-victims-of-ddos-attacks-banks-and-bitcoin-xt/ http://www.financemagnates.com/cryptocurrency/news/the-lates...

steveklabnik 10y ago

> Eeveyone else is shadow banned. On reddit, only admins can shadow ban, and they claimed that they stopped doing it over a year ago, in my understanding.

slaveofallah93 10y ago
Subs can do a pseudo-shadowban by setting up automoderator to delete any comment you make automatically without explicitly banning you.
pmorici 10y ago
None of the comments I make in that sub seem to show up any more and the only reason I realized it is because I stopped getting any responses and checked from an incognito window. Sure enough nothing there. I know others who have experienced the same. Some people are outright banned as well.
- cloakandswagger 10y ago
  I don't even bother with r/bitcoin anymore. The level of groupthink is insufferable, but hard for me to say whether it formed naturally or via direct influence (considering it's Reddit, both are likely)
  - pmorici 10y ago
    I agree. I think it is a natural consequence of the censorship. If you censor comments and ban users that dissent people take the hint pretty quick that diversity of opinion isn't welcome and look elsewhere. The one hope I have for this whole thing being resolved is that historically there are examples in Bitcoin of groups that were once very influential being superseded. Most notable is probably Ghash.io which had so much hash rate at the height of their power that people were afraid they could perform a 51% attack and that Bitcoin was doomed. Today they don't even register a percentage point.

decker 10y ago

Follow the money, it's not baffling at all.

brokenmachine 10y ago
Can you explain better? How does changing the blocksize affect the amount of money?

nadaviv 10y ago

I was sure you're talking about the chinese miners as I started reading your comment... The ones who oppose a block-size increase today are the miners and the anti-Core crowd. The rest of the bitcoin community, including its technical and business community, are pushing for an increase to 2MB blocks in the form of SegWit. And I think the "hostile comments" referred to by the OP are the non-stop personal attacks and toxicity that is happening on r/btc.

pmorici 10y ago
Your comment is a good example of the double speak and gas lighting I often see in /r/bitcoin
- nadaviv 10y ago
  > Your comment is a good example of the double speak and gas lighting I often see in /r/bitcoin It would be a lot easier if people responded to the actual arguments being made, instead of throwing general accusations at people who're trying to have a rational discussions.
  - pmorici 10y ago
    I have responded to your actual arguments in other comments here. I just don't know where to start with this one. Your comment fundamentally misrepresents the position of what you term the "anti core crowd" and so it is hard to have a rational discussion when you can't even acknowledge the position of the other side of the argument. Miners want a hard fork block size increase. You claiming they don't is gas lighting. Core isn't providing it. Segwit is not a block size increase but it's supporters started branding it as one to better market it. That's the double speak part. It's false to call it a block size increase because it isn't. It isn't even guaranteed to increase transaction throughput which is the larger reason for wanting a block size increase. It actually encourages some types of large transaction by discounting the witness data.
    - nadaviv 10y ago

nadaviv 10y ago

You're painting a very unbalanced picture. > There is a small faction of the Bitcoin community working exceptionally hard to prevent any block size increase. This small faction is composed of nearly ~all the technical experts we have in the Bitcoin space, over 100 businesses and projects that support SegWit, the majority of bitcoin users that I'm personally familiar with, the majority of full-nodes on the network (~85%), and the vast majority by pretty much every metric you choose. https://bitcoincore.org/en/segwit_adoption/ https://bitcoincore.org/en/segwit_adoption/ https://bitcoincore.org/en/supporters/ https://bitcoincore.org/en/supporters/ https://coin.dance/nodes/share https://coin.dance/nodes/share https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-core/capacity-increases https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-core/capacity-increases > /r/bitcoin is now just an echo chamber where yes men regurgitate the agenda of a select few. r/bitcoin is the largest and most active bitcoin community by far. It had to start engaging in more heavy-handed moderation when the voting bots, sockpuppet accounts and other manipulation made it impossible to conduct productive discussions. Its sad, but I don't really see an alternative. https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4biob5/research_into_instantaneous_vote_behavior_in/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4biob5/research_in... https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/a-closer-look-at-reddit-vote-manipulation-about-bitcoin-1458682699/ https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/a-closer-look-at-reddit... https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3hf5z7/determining_manipulation_via_sock_puppet_accounts/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3hf5z7/determining... https://news.bitcoin.com/the-block-size-debate-and-sock-puppet/ https://news.bitcoin.com/the-block-size-debate-and-sock-pupp... https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/5n3wsw/birds_by_bitcoincom_get_paid_to_retweet_the/ https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/5n3wsw/birds_by_bitcoi...

pmorici 10y ago
You don't deny that censorship is taking place you are just rationalizing it by calling it "moderation". Lets be clear what is going on there goes way beyond what is commonly understood as moderation. They are systematically silencing a large segment of the Bitcoin community. If your side really had the support you claim the censorship wouldn't be needed.
- nadaviv 10y ago