Stupidity or Malice

Jul 28, 19

I really hate to have to pull a Giacomo here. Giacomo, of course, is the infamous Bitcoin Maximalist who declared that "Everyone who disagrees with me is either stupid or malicious!" I certainly don't believe that. I'm sure there are plenty of thoughtful people who disagree with me for honest reasons. Unfortunately, there are very few of them in the BSV community. Allow me to share a tweet of mine from August of last year.

Now a plain English reading of the tweet would suggest that:

1) I believe the bottleneck at 22 MB is a software bottleneck, not a protocol bottleneck.

2) The bottleneck is fixable with changes to the software and we can indeed increase the size of the blocks beyond 22 MB.

And I would also suggest:

3) The 22 MB is referring to sustained load not one off blocks.

Number three might not be as obvious but if you have any familiarity with the gigablock testnet that I was referencing you would know that it tested sustained load and not one off blocks.

Now would you believe it that not a week goes by without the BSV people sharing screen caps of this tweet while claiming I said >22 MB blocks are "impossible"? So obviously, I don't know what I'm taking about since BSV has produced one off blocks larger than 22 MB. In fact a week may be too generous. It's actually approaching once per day.

And it's not just the plain English reading of my tweet, but it's also the context. The BSV people were demanding the BCH blocksize be raised to 128 MB RIGHT NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

At a time when BCH was using less than one third of one percent of the existing 32 MB capacity. I was arguing that there is no urgency, especially when the empirical research suggests the software cannot yet handle blocks of the size they wanted and that raising the limit to that level would be unsafe. A sentiment confirmed by the fact that BSV suffered a six block reorg on their mainnet while trying to push blocks up to this size. Doh!

So I really can only conclude stupidity or malice here. Seems likely they started out with stupidity. Someone read my tweet, completely failed to comprehend the plain English meaning of it and started sharing it around to try to make a political point. Other stupid people in their community saw the tweet, and likewise failed to understand the plain English meaning of it and also shared it.

But now that I have repeatedly corrected them publicly dozens of times and without any ambiguity, the fact that they continue to share it on a near daily basis leads me to conclude now they are just acting with malice.

And unfortunately it seems to me like this is the majority of their community doing this. Which is rather sad.

Comments (3)
sort by  /

23 May 19 09:54

128 mbyte blocks are better.

but that wasnt the reason of the break-up. 

the competiting group refused to care about the rest of community, and when the majority rejected they plans, they oprenly threatened the bitcoin cash community with the intentional destruction of the network.

remember the story of the two woman, who is in argument: they cant decide which one is the mother of a child. they go to the king to decide which one is the geniune mother. then the king decides to cut the baby in half, and then the mothers can share it. then one woman agrees to slay the baby in half, another one says: she can have the baby, to keep the child alive. now it is clear to see, which one is the geniune mother.

the same thing happened in our community. one side deliberately attempted to destroy the network, which they have claimed its they coin. of course they didnt understood even the basics, as the majority of the network didnt used they nodes, and the nodes decide which blocks getting through, NOT the miners. they have lost this war even before they declared it.

now back to the original topic. when (if) bch will start to have blocks with a couple of mbyte in size, then 128 mbyte blocks can be introduced. and/or, the block time could be decreased to 3 or 4 minutes. but rewriting random places of code just for the sake of achieving megalomanous but useless features, is pointless. bch currently have like 1 transactions per second, with the capacity of being able to scale to 100 transactios per second. of course 128 mbyte block limit would be better in long term, maybe the developers could add it as a quirk that automatically activates some around 2024 or so, and thats fine. but there is no point of debating on an issue that not even exists.

0   0  

5 May 19 12:33

Your points are clear cut. We've enough (in BCH) at current 32MB for the forseable future. And ample of time and chance to improve the software for sustained larger blocks.

The points are made. Now need No further engagement with BSV camps nor anyone still doubting current status quo. They can and should research using the Internet.

Alas people are easily influenced or tricked. It will to your chagrin to try to inform everyone. (tech examples why some unconvinced with one camp of Android vs Apple, or age-old PC vs Mac?) We could list amazing points after points and yet the other side will not budge.

1   0  

4 May 19 02:24

I'm not a Cryptography Guru but here's my take:

Actual Blocksize could be adaptive to network usage; when everyone isn't using BCH much small blocks, when it's used a bit medium blocks, and huge blocks when massive Winter Holiday/New Years shopping spree.

Maximum Blocksize could be unlimited (requires one hardfork), the large mining pools could collude to decide the actual blocksize being produced based network usage.

Subchains (BU proposal), could be used and then pass the transaction onto main blockchain when enough information is logged to make a large enough block?

0   1  

4 May 19 02:59

That's fine. Though lets make sure the software can actually handle the load before the limit raised. It's irresponsible to open the chain up to attacks and reorgs. Fortunately we have a lot of time to do so as it doesn't appear we're going to get to 32mb any time soon.

2   0