|
You guys cheering thermos' censoring of the thread is just sad.
You do understand that just because you silence others that does not make their ideas magically go away, and it does not make you right.
But you always had a losing argument, must feel nice to have the thread censored to get you off the hook of having to continue to defend obvious nonsense.
You guys pulled the nuclear option and deleted/sanitized all discussion you disagree with from /r/bitcoin and bitcointalk.org. If you have to resort to that it always means you are on the wrong side.
So bask in your assumed victory now that there is no one left to question you. It's going to be a short lived one.
|
|
|
|
|
For over 3 years I regularly followed the Gold Collapsing, Bitcoin UP thread, and it was a major component of my bitcoin fix.
Now that thermos locked it down because people were obviously going to discuss [REDACTED] and thermos did not like the results of the poll on [REDACTED], I am feeling lost. I need my Gold Collapsing, Bitcoin UP fix and just can't find it anywhere else.
|
|
|
|
Satoshis recent comments were right and I agree that bitcoin wasnt designed to be at the whim of central authority which is what it is trying to destroy. So with that im with bitcoin original thick or thin.
Central authority like the bitcoin core devs? The core devs have historically worked using a consensus based model of decision making. Gavin & Mike are the ones attempting to force through a contentious fork. Explain how this works exactly. Will gavin and Mike visit each miner, put a gun to their head, and force them to switch to XT. Explain what mechanism they will use to force miners and users to upgrade to XT against their will. The issue is not whether they will succeed or not. It's about undermining the value of the original decision model using fear & propaganda. The original decision model Satoshi designed is consensus through POW based mining as representative of individual voting. You think consensus among devs somehow means something, it doesn't. The reason you and others are throwing so much venom at XT is you are fighting bitcoin's built in consensus mechanism, thinking it should be something its not. |
|
|
|
|
So I just opened both the bitcoin and bitcoinxt reddits to compare the number of active uses online at that moment since this is a better comparison than subscriber count which is mostly inactive users. The results are:
/r/bitcoin - 606 online users
/r/bitcoinxt - 306 online users
That makes 33% of bitcoin redditers switching to the XT reddit in 1 day.
Wow just wow
|
|
|
|
From reddit Wish I had seen this sooner. http://xtpool.xyz is syncing the blockchain right now but should be ready in a couple of hours. More pools always welcome, but yes there is an xt specific pool already. PPS with 1% (yes I know that's not sustainable long term, fee will probably have to increase once reserves run dry), no registration required just point your miner and use your payout address as your worker name. Don't worry, we'll see blocks soon enough. The great thing about bitcoin is how censorship resistant it is, there is no thermos to protect you here. |
|
|
|
I think Erdogan's insight into the game theory behind the block size limit was correct. But to recognize his insight, I think we need to stop thinking in terms of "valid blocks" and start thinking in terms of "valid transactions." All blocks that are composed exclusively of valid transactions are valid. Now instead of thinking that only Core and XT exist, imagine that there are dozens (and in the future possibly hundreds) of competing implementations of Bitcoin. Each implementation has its own rules for what block size it will build upon. From this viewpoint, the "effective limit" is the size of the largest block that's ever been included in the Blockchain. If a miner wants to create a larger block (e.g., to collect more fees), then he has to weigh the chances that his block is orphaned with his desire to create a larger block. If we imagine that the block size limit across the network forms some distribution as shown in the chart labelled "NEW THINKING" below, then, since the miner can't be 100% sure what this distribution is, it is rational for him to use the tip-toe method to minimize risk.  I think this is confusing a protocol enforced "limit" and market preferences. There can not be disagreement on the protocol enforced limit, which is what your right hand graph shows. If there was then miners that issued larger blocks will get forked off of every miner with a lower limit. I think the current situation is also more representative of the right hand side graph, than the left. Today all miners have a fixed protocol limit of 1MB, but many have preferences for smaller blocks. For example the stress tests showed just how many still had the 750KB soft limit in place. So we in practice have the right hand graph today. What is needed instead is to get rid of the protocol limit in practice (maybe keep a high water anti-spam limit which is what the 1MB was/is), while letting the market show it's preferences. This would be like a combination of the two graphs where an anti-spam limit is far off to the right of the graph, and below that miners show a range of preferences on block sizes they are willing to both issue and accept, which looks like your graph on the right. This situation probably leads to a loose and dynamic form of market consensus on sizes. Miners that decided to only accept blocks well below most other miners' preference risk being orphaned at a higher rate and so are forced to up the size they accept to better match other miners. At the same time miners that issue blocks larger than what most other miners are willing to build on also risk being orphaned at a higher rate. The result is miners are forced by market pressures to move towards a consensus. This is where we should be and the hard protocol limit prevents the market from properly functioning. What "many" have preferences for smaller blocks specifically? Who? The last stress test showed that many pools were operating with the default 750KB block limit in place, which is a configurable option in the core and defaults to 750K. This is separate from the protocol limit of 1MB. You could see this as a string of MANY blocks coming in at just under 750KB. As a result of the stress test some of those pools changed their default to 1MB, but not all. |
|
|
|
I think Erdogan's insight into the game theory behind the block size limit was correct. But to recognize his insight, I think we need to stop thinking in terms of "valid blocks" and start thinking in terms of "valid transactions." All blocks that are composed exclusively of valid transactions are valid. Now instead of thinking that only Core and XT exist, imagine that there are dozens (and in the future possibly hundreds) of competing implementations of Bitcoin. Each implementation has its own rules for what block size it will build upon. From this viewpoint, the "effective limit" is the size of the largest block that's ever been included in the Blockchain. If a miner wants to create a larger block (e.g., to collect more fees), then he has to weigh the chances that his block is orphaned with his desire to create a larger block. If we imagine that the block size limit across the network forms some distribution as shown in the chart labelled "NEW THINKING" below, then, since the miner can't be 100% sure what this distribution is, it is rational for him to use the tip-toe method to minimize risk. I think this is confusing a protocol enforced "limit" and market preferences. There can not be disagreement on the protocol enforced limit, which is what your right hand graph shows. If there was then miners that issued larger blocks will get forked off of every miner with a lower limit. I think the current situation is also more representative of the right hand side graph, than the left. Today all miners have a fixed protocol limit of 1MB, but many have preferences for smaller blocks. For example the stress tests showed just how many still had the 750KB soft limit in place. So we in practice have the right hand graph today. What is needed instead is to get rid of the protocol limit in practice (maybe keep a high water anti-spam limit which is what the 1MB was/is), while letting the market show it's preferences. This would be like a combination of the two graphs where an anti-spam limit is far off to the right of the graph, and below that miners show a range of preferences on block sizes they are willing to both issue and accept, which looks like your graph on the right. This situation probably leads to a loose and dynamic form of market consensus on sizes. Miners that decided to only accept blocks well below most other miners' preference risk being orphaned at a higher rate and so are forced to up the size they accept to better match other miners. At the same time miners that issue blocks larger than what most other miners are willing to build on also risk being orphaned at a higher rate. The result is miners are forced by market pressures to move towards a consensus. This is where we should be and the hard protocol limit prevents the market from properly functioning. |
|
|
|
The reason P2Pool never took off is because it's performance and rewards are sub-optimal and pay out less than other pools (only slightly but it's been enough to keep P2Pool from having wide adoption. ) So far as I can tell none of the major pools have committed either way and no mined XT blocks have been found. this is true. but i'd argue, this is exactly what we want to see and represents creative destruction in process. disadvantaged p2pools are seeing an opportunity to level the playing field by attracting pro-XT hashers over to their pools to gain marketshare. if we are correctly surmising the "economic majority" favoring XT, then large traditional pools need to be concerned with this migration if it occurs. they stand to lose hashers. of course, the flipside is true as well, by declaring one's use of XT software, they too could lose pro-Core hashers. i still think XT is on the right side of this ultimately though. one other thing. if hashers move to p2pool, what we'll get is increasing decentralization of mining, which would be a side effect of this split in ideology. and not just by hashers moving away from larger pools but by adopting the p2pool concept in general. that is a good thing. I think what is more likely is a small percentage of miners move to p2pool for this issue and then a larger pool adopts XT to both stop the blead and to capture share. Then the dam breaks |
|
|
|
The reason P2Pool never took off is because it's performance and rewards are sub-optimal and pay out less than other pools (only slightly but it's been enough to keep P2Pool from having wide adoption. ) So far as I can tell none of the major pools have committed either way and no mined XT blocks have been found. |
|
|
|
564
Still no blocks though apparently. There needs to be statements from the pool operators telling miners how they are voting. Right now I think most are being neutral to not lose anyone (either way), but at some point miners will want to know what the pools plan to do so they can migrate to pools aligned with them. |
|
|
|
Hey Guys,
I'm thinking it's time for me to leave /r/bitcoin (or at least begin making an exit). There seem to be three good migration choices:
/r/bitcoin_uncensored 1,403 subscribers
/r/bitcoinxt 2,390 subscribers
/r/btc 625 subscribers
On a strictly "what is the best name?" basis, I prefer /r/btc. Bitcoin_uncensored will come across as dramatic and childish when this ordeal blows over and bitcoinxt will appear too tightly-coupled to a particular implementation of bitcoin (the very problem we are trying to avoid).
So, I think I prefer /r/btc; however, it has the smallest readership at the moment. What are other peoples' thoughts?
I unsubscribed from /r/bitcoin and subscribed to all of the above. Not sure which is the right path, but they are all better than thermos' Stalinist utopia. |
|
|
|
 7-1/2% and climbing. Over 8% now:  Our window over this weekend into what the true uncensored opinion is in/r/bitcoin shows just how much in favor the economic majority is for larger blocks. That is the real problem with censorship, it never works because it does not allow one to see just how off they are, and leaves no ability to self correct. But again, node count does not matter, we need to see blocks coded for the version change. |
|
|
|
Wow, just wow. https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3h9cq4/its_time_for_a_break_about_the_recent_mess/Thermos has really exposed himself and the rest of the intentions of the LN crew in this post. What is interesting is in the 24 hours he was off over the weekend just how pro-XT /r/bitcoin became. Huge upvotes and a large number of intelligent comments regarding the blocksize debate favoring XT and larger blocks determined by a free market. Then thermos came back and poof, it was as if it never happened. At least the absurdity is fully out in the open Do not violate our rules just because you disagree with them. This will get you banned from /r/Bitcoin, and evading this ban will get you (and maybe your IP) banned from Reddit entirely.
If 90% of /r/Bitcoin users find these policies to be intolerable, then I want these 90% of /r/Bitcoin users to leave. Both /r/Bitcoin and these people will be happier for it. I do not want these people to make threads breaking the rules, demanding change, asking for upvotes, making personal attacks against moderators, etc. Without some real argument, you're not going to convince anyone with any brains -- you're just wasting your time and ours. The temporary rules against blocksize and moderation discussion are in part designed to encourage people who should leave /r/Bitcoin to actually do so so that /r/Bitcoin can get back to the business of discussing Bitcoin news in peace.
|
|
|
|
Nodes are great an all, but consensus is derived from miners. 100% of nodes could be running XT but it wouldn't matter if the miners don't. What is needed an each way to track each pool and how they are voting, that way individual miners could vote with their feet and move to pools that match their views. Jeff Garzik stated today that more than 80% of the hashpower supports blocks larger than 1MB https://twitter.com/jgarzik/status/632877777688006656Up until now they have been communicating this as BIP100. We need to track BIP101 adoption. |
|
|
|
still ramping:  Nodes are great an all, but consensus is derived from miners. 100% of nodes could be running XT but it wouldn't matter if the miners don't. What is needed an each way to track each pool and how they are voting, that way individual miners could vote with their feet and move to pools that match their views. |
|
|
|
I question the need for new messages to help SPV clients find the right path because 1) they seem exploitable to me and 2) all they need is the header chain to find the right path and headers are already short and fast to transmit. Waiting for x blocks again seems to protect them if you assume a majority of well connected miners.
This is a far weaker security model that what is achievable. If you can point a way to exploit this technique, I'd appreciate having it pointed out: https://gist.github.com/justusranvier/451616fa4697b5f25f60I guess I'm just expressing the opinion that the current header based proof if work mechanism is working fine so far and is difficult to exploit. I'll take a look when I have time (but you're a smart guy so I'm sure the solution is strong). Its just that in this instance I'm not sure we have a problem yet, and I'm starting to take a if its not broke why fix it view largely out of fear that an unneeded change might have adverse unknown consequences (but maybe we will someday and so its very useful to have solutions ready) |
|
|
|
Have you guys seen this, a DAC gambling/prediction engine built on top of Ethereum http://reason.com/blog/2015/08/11/augur-gambling-prediction-ethereumI think this is the first example of a true DAC out in the wild that I've seen. Bitcoin still hasn't even gotten started yet. Edit: the reason folks are solid libertarians but most of them still don't get bitcoin. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
