Post by Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev

It was _well_ .... understood that the users of Bitcoin would wish to

protect its decenteralization by limiting the size of the chain to keep it

verifyable on small devices.

No it wasn't. That is something you invented yourself much later. "Small

devices" isn't even defined anywhere, so there can't have been any such

understanding.

No it wasn't. That is something you invented yourself much later. "Smalldevices" isn't even defined anywhere, so there can't have been any suchunderstanding.

Post by Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev

Then he went on to talk about Moore's law and streaming HD videos and the

like. At no point did he ever talk about limiting the system for "small

devices".

I have been both working on and using Bitcoin for longer than you have been

around, Gregory. Please don't attempt to bullshit me about what the plan

was. And stop obscuring what this is about. It's not some personality cult -

the reason I keep beating you over the head with Satoshi's words is because

it's that founding vision of the project that brought everyone together, and

gave us all a shared goal.

Then he went on to talk about Moore's law and streaming HD videos and thelike. At no point did he ever talk about limiting the system for "smalldevices".I have been both working on and using Bitcoin for longer than you have beenaround, Gregory. Please don't attempt to bullshit me about what the planwas. And stop obscuring what this is about. It's not some personality cult -the reason I keep beating you over the head with Satoshi's words is becauseit's that founding vision of the project that brought everyone together, andgave us all a shared goal.

Post by Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev

Since when have we "campaigned" to "ignore problems" in the mining

ecosystem?

Since when have we "campaigned" to "ignore problems" in the miningecosystem?

Post by Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev

Gregory, you are getting really crazy now. Stop it. The trend towards mining

centralisation is not the fault of Gavin or myself, or anyone else.

Gregory, you are getting really crazy now. Stop it. The trend towards miningcentralisation is not the fault of Gavin or myself, or anyone else.

Post by Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev

And SPV

is exactly what was always intended to be used. It's not something I

"fixated" on, it's right there in the white paper. Satoshi even encouraged

me to keep working on bitcoinj before he left!

And SPVis exactly what was always intended to be used. It's not something I"fixated" on, it's right there in the white paper. Satoshi even encouragedme to keep working on bitcoinj before he left!

Post by Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev

Look, it's clear you have decided that the way Bitcoin was meant to evolve

isn't to your personal liking. That's fine. Go make an alt coin where your

founding documents state that it's intended to always run on a 2015

Raspberry Pi, or whatever it is you mean by "small device". Remove SPV

capability from the protocol so everyone has to fully validate. Make sure

that's the understanding that everyone has from day one about what your alt

coin is for. Then when someone says, gee, it'd be nice if we had some more

capacity, you or someone else can go point at the announcement emails and

say "no, GregCoin is meant to always be verifiable on small devices, that's

our social contract and it's written into the consensus rules for that

reason".

Look, it's clear you have decided that the way Bitcoin was meant to evolveisn't to your personal liking. That's fine. Go make an alt coin where yourfounding documents state that it's intended to always run on a 2015Raspberry Pi, or whatever it is you mean by "small device". Remove SPVcapability from the protocol so everyone has to fully validate. Make surethat's the understanding that everyone has from day one about what your altcoin is for. Then when someone says, gee, it'd be nice if we had some morecapacity, you or someone else can go point at the announcement emails andsay "no, GregCoin is meant to always be verifiable on small devices, that'sour social contract and it's written into the consensus rules for thatreason".

[...]Mike, my first use of Bitcoin was in 2009. I wasn't vigorously activein the Bitcoin community until the beginning of 2011, indeed. But thisis just a couple months after you (E.g. first code available forBitcoinJ was March 2011-- if you go by forums.bitcoin.org accounttimes my account was created May 5th 2011 vs yours Dec 14th 2010; lessthan five months after yours). I was also working with related systemslong before (E.g. RPOW in 2004). So give me a break, there is no rankto pull here.Yet again you've managed to call me a bullshitter and guilty of"invention" when in fact I'm actually quoting the system's creator(although without the explicit fallacious argument from authoritystyle you seem prefer). For someone who seems to base all hisarguments on interpretations of someone's words you sure seem to calltheir words lies awfully often:"Piling every proof-of-work quorum system in the world into onedataset doesn't scale."[...]"Bitcoin users might get increasingly tyrannical about limiting thesize of the chain so it's easy for lots of users and small devices."---- https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1790.msg28917#msg28917If you'll note,, the post was Dec 10th 2010 and, presumably, made withan improved understanding of the implications of the system thencomments made in 2008 before the system was even operational.(The same message also mentions that smart contracts can be used tocreate trustless trade with off-chain systems; As well, later in thatthread: "it will be much easier if you can freely use all the spaceyou need without worrying about paying fees for expensive space inBitcoin's chain.")I haven't bothered arguing from old posts in the past because I findthe practice of argument from authority on this subject abhorrent. Itundermines the unique value of Bitcoin to argue based on a singlepersonal opinion, to do so is to miss the point of Bitcoin in a deepand fundamental way. And in my opinion what you're doing is actuallymuch worse: arguing from distortions of random quotations. But it'shard to tolerate the continue revision of history from you in silence.Moreover, I find those arguments with respect Moore's law especiallyunconvincing because while I cannot read the mind of people who arenot a part of this discussion and haven't chosen to comment, I've usedthe same argument myself and I know what I was thinking when I used it(and can establish as much, since I'm more verbose I elaborated onit): When someone pointed at Bitcoins _global_ broadcast medium andloudly said that it cannot work because its absurd; and it's very easyto point out broad scaling behavior about what Bitcoin could achievewith complete centralization. Once this has been accepted the argumentis _over_ in Bitcoin's favor: Bitcoin's competition has highlycentralized administration and so once someone has accepted Bitcoincan (in some way) accommodate the worlds transactions, even if thatcomes at the cost of 99% of the decentralization, it's clear thatBitcoin offers something interesting. (And for example, I elaboratedon this in a Wiki edit in Aug 2011,https://en.bitcoin.it/w/index.php?title=Scalability&action=historysubmit&diff=14273&oldid=14112-- though I shouldn't need to point this out to you, since it was youwho subsequently erased these words from the page.)[...]For example, you fought vigorously to get Bitcoin Core offBitcoin.org, which would ensure that users were not previouslyequipped with a node suitable for operating mining (which thencontributed substantially to the poor usability of solutions likeP2Pool; with 98% of it's install time spent waiting for Bitcoin Coreto sync).You've (in my view) aggressively advocated increasing the resourceutilization of Bitcoin-- increasing the cost to participate in miningwithout delegation, with no consideration (or at least disclosure) ofthe ramifications on the system overall:https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=149668.0Gavin, for example, has advocated removing mining support from Bitcoincore on several occasions; and constantly professes ignorance onanything mining. His own interests are up to him, but to not beconcerned about a central part of the system for anyone working onchanging it at such a deep level is-- I think-- a bit problematic.But I didn't intend to lay blame here, if anything I blame myself fornot being more proactive in arguing against things things in the past.The trend towards mining centralization is a result of various forces,many of which are modulated by the very things we're discussing here(or could be modulated by things we haven't discussed). You're theprinciple advocate of increasing the cost of a decentralized ecosystemaround verification and driving the system towards a state where it isonly viable in a more centralized mode. Bitcoin is an artificialconstruction, not a force of nature, and when someone seeks to changeit they ought to take responsibility for what happens--- it's notacceptable to say "oh well, it's not eh fault of anyone" when theincentives drive it in a bad direction.Is that your strategy on the systems resource consumption in general?Full throttle, no action when it goes off the rails, when the easilyforeseeable negative outcomes happen it won't be the "fault" ofanyone? If so, I don't think that is acceptable. We need to face theareas in which the system is failing, now and in the future... and notjust pump for growth at all cost and shrug and say "oh well, we tried"when the predictable failure happens. It's far from clear to me thatthe world will get a second shot at this in the next several decadesif Bitcoin lapses into the same-old, same-old.The fixation comment was a specific reply to your long list of the"only reasons" to run a full node, which seemed to be basically saidthat the only reason to run one was to act as a server for SPVclients; as it listed several points on that-- all three of thenumbered points were "serving SPV wallets"-- and buried the rest. I'msorry if I read too much into it, though it's also consistent withyour prior responses that the non-scalability of Bitcoin as a whole isirrelevant due to SPV.I don't think there is anything fundamentally bad with SPV, it is whatit is; it's a tool and an important one. But at the moment it is farmore limited than you give it credit for both because it is onlysecure under certain assumptions which have been provably violated notjust at risk of violation, and because the more complete vision of it(e.g. with fraud proofs) has never been implemented.Now that I've established the "small device" text you're railing onhere actually came from the system's creator prior to yourinvolvement, can I expect an admission that your own "personal liking"doesn't have special authority over the system? But I hope you don'tcreate an altcoin: I think it's possible to find ways to accommodatepeople with very different preferences under one tent, and if we areto build and support a worldwide system we _must_ find those waysrather than fragmenting the marketplace.