5 ms·

Bingo. While there are issues with the developers and their decision making process the real issue is with the large mining conglomerates that control huge port

Bingo. While there are issues with the developers and their decision making process the real issue is with the large mining conglomerates that control huge portions of the network. They have enormous influence on what changes are actually rolled out and have generally been unwilling to implement changes that will affect their profits. Google for the drama around ASICBOOST, Bitmain, and SegWit.

zanny 9y ago
I completely agree, I wasn't trying to single out the bitcoin-core devs in my allegations. The core devs don't want to rock the boat because the miners would resist changes that threaten their immediate bottom lines (high fees per block minted). Its a tragedy of the commons.
- Frogolocalypse 9y ago
  A tragedy that has doubled in value in six months.
  - dsacco 9y ago
    Volatility is not an assurance of consensus valuation or rationality.
    - Frogolocalypse 9y ago
      Volatility is a sign of a lack of liquidity in a market that is rapidly gaining (or decreasing) in accumulated capital. In bitcoin, for now, it is increasing. In bitcoin the important point isn't the volatility, but the fact that it is objectively being sought after by an increasing number of people.
    - revmoo 9y ago
      Nor is it the reverse
- gnaritas 9y ago
  > Its a tragedy of the commons. Alternatively, it's a feature. The miners "are" the network, them rejecting a change is the network saying no democratically, and that was the intent of the way things were setup, this is how it's supposed to work. A change that hurts miners profits isn't good for the network because it'll reduce mining and thus reduce security of the network overall. So while a change to increase transaction volumes might be good for currency holders; holders aren't the ones providing security, miners are, and the incentives are setup this way for a reason, it keeps the network secure thus providing the value for the currency to begin with.
  - Frogolocalypse 9y ago
    > The miners "are" the network Err... no. Nodes define and police consensus in bitcoin, not miners. It is the fact that nodes, and not miners, not agreeing to changes that miners want that would lead to the centralization of the network into miners hands, that is the entire argument about scalability and blocksize. > them rejecting a change is the network saying no democratically Yes, it is the nodes rejecting change that is leading to little to no change. The nodes have overwhelmingly agreed to an upgrade, and the largest miner, bitmain, is resisting it, so there may be some truth to the assertion that miners don't want this upgrade because they perceive they will lose profit from it. The fact that the nodes are looking to 'go over bitmains head' and implement this change without the need for the largest blocking miner, that is the entire reason the 'new york agreement' was developed in the first place. But we do agree on the core issue. The lack of the ability to easily change is a feature of the design. The incentives are slightly misaligned with the implementation of asicboost, but for the most part, they function as expected.
    - nas 9y ago
      I think you are drinking the UASF kool-aid. A fork that is not supported by the mining power is going to get easily attacked. I guess the "economic majority" could fork and change the proof-of-work so that existing ASIC hardware is useless. However, I would argue that the fork is no longer Bitcoin and that the original POW coin would continue to be used and have value. It would be a lot worse than the ETH/ETC split. I haven't followed the drama super close but I take the "New York Agreement" as the adults stepping into the room and saying enough with the crazy ideas. If they manage to get SegWit enabled and increase the block size for old-style transactions, I think Bitcoin will be in good shape for a while. I'm not sure it will go smooth though so I cashed out some of my BTC as a hedge. It seems we both agree that the difficulty of changing the design is a good feature, even though it is frustrating right now due to scaling. A dictatorship is a great system of governance, as long as you can trust him to do good. Other systems are messy and frustrating.

zanny 9y ago

I completely agree, I wasn't trying to single out the bitcoin-core devs in my allegations. The core devs don't want to rock the boat because the miners would resist changes that threaten their immediate bottom lines (high fees per block minted). Its a tragedy of the commons.

Frogolocalypse 9y ago
A tragedy that has doubled in value in six months.
- dsacco 9y ago
  Volatility is not an assurance of consensus valuation or rationality.
  - Frogolocalypse 9y ago
    Volatility is a sign of a lack of liquidity in a market that is rapidly gaining (or decreasing) in accumulated capital. In bitcoin, for now, it is increasing. In bitcoin the important point isn't the volatility, but the fact that it is objectively being sought after by an increasing number of people.
  - revmoo 9y ago
    Nor is it the reverse
gnaritas 9y ago
> Its a tragedy of the commons. Alternatively, it's a feature. The miners "are" the network, them rejecting a change is the network saying no democratically, and that was the intent of the way things were setup, this is how it's supposed to work. A change that hurts miners profits isn't good for the network because it'll reduce mining and thus reduce security of the network overall. So while a change to increase transaction volumes might be good for currency holders; holders aren't the ones providing security, miners are, and the incentives are setup this way for a reason, it keeps the network secure thus providing the value for the currency to begin with.
- Frogolocalypse 9y ago
  > The miners "are" the network Err... no. Nodes define and police consensus in bitcoin, not miners. It is the fact that nodes, and not miners, not agreeing to changes that miners want that would lead to the centralization of the network into miners hands, that is the entire argument about scalability and blocksize. > them rejecting a change is the network saying no democratically Yes, it is the nodes rejecting change that is leading to little to no change. The nodes have overwhelmingly agreed to an upgrade, and the largest miner, bitmain, is resisting it, so there may be some truth to the assertion that miners don't want this upgrade because they perceive they will lose profit from it. The fact that the nodes are looking to 'go over bitmains head' and implement this change without the need for the largest blocking miner, that is the entire reason the 'new york agreement' was developed in the first place. But we do agree on the core issue. The lack of the ability to easily change is a feature of the design. The incentives are slightly misaligned with the implementation of asicboost, but for the most part, they function as expected.
  - nas 9y ago
    I think you are drinking the UASF kool-aid. A fork that is not supported by the mining power is going to get easily attacked. I guess the "economic majority" could fork and change the proof-of-work so that existing ASIC hardware is useless. However, I would argue that the fork is no longer Bitcoin and that the original POW coin would continue to be used and have value. It would be a lot worse than the ETH/ETC split. I haven't followed the drama super close but I take the "New York Agreement" as the adults stepping into the room and saying enough with the crazy ideas. If they manage to get SegWit enabled and increase the block size for old-style transactions, I think Bitcoin will be in good shape for a while. I'm not sure it will go smooth though so I cashed out some of my BTC as a hedge. It seems we both agree that the difficulty of changing the design is a good feature, even though it is frustrating right now due to scaling. A dictatorship is a great system of governance, as long as you can trust him to do good. Other systems are messy and frustrating.