1) So I fire up 2000 nodes, all selecting 200MB as cap.
2) I make the miners belive this is the prefered block size.
Andddd it ends there because the economic majority currently has settled on enforcing a 1MB nodes and that any change to that rule require consensus upgrade from the whole network. |
|
|
|
User selectable cap means sybil attack. Again, nobody is answering my questions here.
What will BU do to stop my 2000 nodes acting to create the illusion of that the network wishes for very large blocks.
Actually, my Sybil attack can go something like this:
1) Vote for 1.5 MB blocks
2) Check how many nodes I have killed with the increase
3) Vote for 2MB blocks
4) Check how many nodes I have killed with the increase
X) Keep doing until I am the network of nodes. Fill up the blocks and start pushing out the Chinese miners as well.
Incremental Sybil attack, cheap and easy to pull off.
See my page 2 post for a detailed walk through of what you have in mind. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1312371.msg13430261#msg13430261 |
|
|
|
|
So still not one person on the BU side is willing to tackle the faulty assumption that user defined parameters is somehow a good way to signal the economic majority's preferred blocksize to miners, making its one distinctive aspect pretty much worthless.
|
|
|
|
Sorry for stepping in.
If someone tries to sybill the networks and sets up 2,000 nodes with a blocklimit of 200 MB, no responsible miner would take this as a reason to set his own limit to 200 MB.
When one of the miners was corrupted too, he could release a 200 MB block and 2,000 Nodes would propagate it. All the other nodes with lower limits would reject the block untill it reaches some depth. For that to happen the majority of miners has to be corrupted.
The attack is a lot more complex than that. I think you're on the BU forum? Taek had a nice explanation of the centralization pressure enabled by BU. Someone could leverage a sybil attack to effectively do just what he proposed: slowly but surely prune nodes out of the network until it gets consolidated into a few more controllable hands. If you are a miner, and you know a block of size X can be processed by 85% of the network, but not 100%, do you mine it? If by 'network', we mean hashrate, then definitely! 85% is high enough that you'll be able to build the longest chain. The miners that can't keep up will be pruned, and then the target for '85% fastest' moves - now a smaller set of miners represents 85% and you can move the block size up, pruning another set of miners.
If by 'network', you mean all nodes... today we already have nodes that can't keep up. So by necessity you are picking a subset of nodes that can keep up, and a subset that cannot. So, now you are deciding who is safe to prune. Raspi's? Probably safe. Single merchants that run their own nodes on desktop hardware? Probably safe. All desktop hardware, but none of the exchanges? Maybe not safe today. But if you've been near desktop levels for a while, and slowly driving off the slower desktops, at some point you might only be driving away 10 nodes to jump up to 'small datacenter' levels.
And so it continues anyway. You get perpetual centralization pressure because there will always be that temptation to drive off that slowest subset of the network since by doing so you can claim more transaction fees. |
|
|
|
I would say a Sybil attacker with the resources to cook up 1000 nodes will have no trouble modding a bit of C++ code or hiring a coder to do that. That's the least of the barriers, and even if it were to be relied on, that would be a losing battle. If inconvenience were all that is keeping Bitcoin secure, we would have a problem. Also see my edit to the post immediately above yours.
I'm not sure if you're intentionally avoiding the gaping hole in your analysis or if you just don't see it. Yes, someone could spin up 1000 nodes tomorrow that advertise a larger block size but the context is quite different in that the network has agreed by consensus that these would be invalid. For that reason miners will not mine such blocks or they will get forked off the network for not respecting the consenus rules (and lose money). From what I understand BU proposes that all of these nodes be aggregated into a signal that miners should consider when creating the blocks. That is the nature of a sybil attack. With current Core consensus rules it is very easy for miners to tell nodes apart from eachother, there are two kinds: 1MB nodes and the rest. |
|
|
|
lets say each person made 1 remittance a week
knowing that there are 144 blocks a day and a potential of 4000tx a block (with luck)
4000x144x7= 4 million users making 1 transaction a week.
which is not adequate for the 192million migrant workers (quoted by world bank), thats just over 2%
I guess most of them do not have enough skill to "go to exchanges -> purchase some bitcoin -> send them to another exchange in another country -> sell them for local currency". I have tried to teach one friend to transfer the fund from another country (she is a 37 years old professor) when she visited me, she said there is so much hassle and she will never do it again, she does not care about the expensive bank fee, she just want fast and easy process of use her credit card So even bitcoin were used in remittance, it will be some large companies utilizing bitcoin and the end user would only notice the speed and fee advantage. However, if it is operated by large companies, then they are operating more or less like Western Union, have frequent clearing and settlement and do not need blockchai See Abra & Align Commerce I've been registered at Abra for a long time but it seems there is no progress AFAIK they're soft-launching in targeted areas for now (Philippines being one of them) As for remittances it does need a tech-savy person and one someone somewhat familiar with Bitcoin to really leverage the benefits of it. Personally I use Bitcoin regularly to send money abroad using rebit.ph and it's saved me a great deal of money and hassle. |
|
|
|
Nope, not at all. I'm merely pointing out that you are talking rubbish when you say you are not taking sides. you clearly have.
Oh - so what "side" am I on (strange that you know but I don't)? You are arguing with a paid troll (NotLambChop) Don't expect to come out on the winning side of the argument (or have the last word for that matter) |
|
|
|
lets say each person made 1 remittance a week
knowing that there are 144 blocks a day and a potential of 4000tx a block (with luck)
4000x144x7= 4 million users making 1 transaction a week.
which is not adequate for the 192million migrant workers (quoted by world bank), thats just over 2%
I guess most of them do not have enough skill to "go to exchanges -> purchase some bitcoin -> send them to another exchange in another country -> sell them for local currency". I have tried to teach one friend to transfer the fund from another country (she is a 37 years old professor) when she visited me, she said there is so much hassle and she will never do it again, she does not care about the expensive bank fee, she just want fast and easy process of use her credit card So even bitcoin were used in remittance, it will be some large companies utilizing bitcoin and the end user would only notice the speed and fee advantage. However, if it is operated by large companies, then they are operating more or less like Western Union, have frequent clearing and settlement and do not need blockchai See Abra & Align Commerce |
|
|
|
This, gentlemen is the curtain call. After much consideration I've decided to turn the page on this thread in light of the most recent developments but also so that it stops paying lip service to the lying fraudster above and his cohort of deception artists. (Remind me not to ever create another thread without making it self-moderated) It is clear that we now have a path forward out of this arguable gridlock thanks to the hard work of knowledgeable but most importantly resilient people. ( https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-core/capacity-increases) Although it was never a consideration that a merry bunch of loud mouths with no authority could hijack the project and hardfork Bitcoin into inexistence the schism was of a great service to everyone involved with Bitcoin in that it help identify the malicious actors and to some extent purge them from the ecosystem. The leaders of this governance coup are now nowhere to be seen, Mike Hearn having revealed themselves as the villain he always was is now gone working full time for the bankers he had probably always been in cahoots with. Gavin Andresen has taken residency over at a forum populated by notorious scammer cypherdoc and dangerous, sociopath, charlatan Peter R. After previously advocating for what was deemed a "safe" immediate increase to 20MB, he is now figuratively begging on his knees for 2MB "compromise" only for the sake of forcing a contentious hard fork on Bitcoin in order to undermine the trust of investors in what projects to be the most important year for Bitcoin yet. As for the groups of shills they've spawned their "community" is in shambles largely because of the self-admitted fractious tendencies. In what proved to be its strongest menace to date it is now safe to say Bitcoin has once again demonstrated its value and the strength of its antifragile nature. Seeing as I can't bother responding anymore to the endless barrage of lies and deception spewed here by the shills (and I certainly understand why others have already given up) it would be a disservice to more naive & gullible individuals to leave the thread open and provide a stage for these scammers. Nonetheless it was a good ride and proved to be a most informative experience. I'd like to thank all of the honest contributors who've helped separate the wheat from the chaff (you know who you are). A special mention for iCEBREAKER for being the originator of the #REKT movement. It was an honor to carry the torch. To the rest of you contemptible, lying ph0rkers understand that by the grace of the internet your performances and subsequent downfall will forever be preserved for posterity and serve as a tell-tale of the consequences of going against Bitcoin. May your souls rest in peace. Long live Bitcoin! |
|
|
|
 Cheers!!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
As I said earlier when looking at block size you have to look at transaction fees.Do we force larger transaction fees on people or do we just let the chinese tell us what they want.I was told this was in the future but sorry the future is now
Yes! Let's socialize costs on everyone like all good collectivists shills would. TRANSACTION SUBSIDY FOR EVERYONE!!! BITCOIN FOR THE PEOPLE!! You statists make me sick  |
|
|
|
I presume that you did not read the posts I linked earlier that I wrote. In there I explained how increasing the blocksize, does not increase the barrier to entry of mining whatsoever. Miners do not even run full nodes themselves for the purpose of mining, which is why the increased difficulty of running a full node does not increase the difficulty or barrier to entry of mining. I am a miner myself, solo mining is only feasible if you are a huge industrial operation, not exactly contributing to decentralization. P2P mining unfortunately is not good enough both due to the increased complexity and incompatibility with certain ASIC miners, this is reflected in the hashrate. More then seventy percent of the mining power is presently inside of public pools, this is good. https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-203#post-7395https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-208#post-7550Larger blocks increase the chances of block orphans which public pools are more at risk of than larger private miners. I know it pleases you to live in your own little lunacy and pretend that you understand these things but this is not really debatable since this is pretty much what came out of the discussion between miners and developers at the most recent Scaling Bitcoin conference. I will try explaining it in a way in which you might understand: I can see Taek made a valiant effort at explaining it to you over there at the mental ward but as usual you were too dense to understand and kept mischaracterizing his arguments and straight up making strawmen out of them. Hopefully you plan to be a little more honest and gracious and less disingenuous in 2016! Bitcoin Unlimited: let's hand it all off to miners and call it the free market! |
|
|
|
I presume that you did not read the posts I linked earlier that I wrote. In there I explained how increasing the blocksize, does not increase the barrier to entry of mining whatsoever. Miners do not even run full nodes themselves for the purpose of mining, which is why the increased difficulty of running a full node does not increase the difficulty or barrier to entry of mining. I am a miner myself, solo mining is only feasible if you are a huge industrial operation, not exactly contributing to decentralization. P2P mining unfortunately is not good enough both due to the increased complexity and incompatibility with certain ASIC miners, this is reflected in the hashrate. More then seventy percent of the mining power is presently inside of public pools, this is good. https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-203#post-7395https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-208#post-7550Larger blocks increase the chances of block orphans which public pools are more at risk of than larger private miners. I know it pleases you to live in your own little lunacy and pretend that you understand these things but this is not really debatable since this is pretty much what came out of the discussion between miners and developers at the most recent Scaling Bitcoin conference. |
|
|
|
This problem is far worse if blocks were 8MB: an 8MB transaction with 22,500 inputs and 3.95MB of outputs takes over 11 minutes to hash. If you can mine one of those, you can keep competitors off your heels forever, and own the bitcoin network… Well, probably not. But there’d be a lot of emergency patching, forking and screaming…
And this is with the initial optimizations completed to speed up Verification. This means that If we hardforked a 2MB MaxBlockSize increase on the main tree and we softforked/hardforked in SepSig, we would essentially have up to a 8MB limit (3.5MB to 8MB) in which an attack vector could be opened up with heavy output and multisig tx which would crash nodes. What you are saying here is completely factually inaccurate, the number of transactions does not increase hashing time. BitUsher may have confused things up with the term "hash" but what he says is factually correct. Even a single-line change such as increasing the maximum block size has effects on other parts of the code, some of which are undesirable. For example, right now it’s possible to construct a transaction that takes up almost 1MB of space and which takes 30 seconds or more to validate on a modern computer (blocks containing such transactions have been mined). In 2MB blocks, a 2MB transaction can be constructed that may take over 10 minutes to validate which opens up dangerous denial-of-service attack vectors. Other lines of code would need to be changed to prevent these problems. . https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-core/capacity-increases-faq |
|
|
|
But simulation by bitfury already indicated that we will have a severe performance problem with 4MB blocks on average home computer
I'd like to see that report. Got a link? With only several thousand running full nodes now, it seems to me that 'average home computer' is not the limiting issue. I don't remember exactly, but just google it, and also another statistic by Mark in Montreal conference showing that even a 1MB block can take over 30s to verify on a mining node Today we have the mining relay network, the block is relayed in milliseconds. What you are saying is factually incorrect. There is absolutely no relation between the time it takes to relay and the time it takes for nodes to verify it. As usual, you have no clue what it is you are talking about. |
|
|
|
So, the facebook generation or the twitteraty or similar starts using Litecoin, taking with them massive liquidity and a market cap 10 times (or more) that of Bitcoin. Why would you buy a car with Bitcoin instead of Litecoin? Why would you transfer 50 million USD from the US to China using Bitcoin rather than Litecoin?
 The poor generation somehow is going to lead the way for a coin to grow 10x the size of Bitcoin. There's strength in numbers. The common dross may be distasteful to you, but they do have volume.   |
|
|
|
So, the facebook generation or the twitteraty or similar starts using Litecoin, taking with them massive liquidity and a market cap 10 times (or more) that of Bitcoin. Why would you buy a car with Bitcoin instead of Litecoin? Why would you transfer 50 million USD from the US to China using Bitcoin rather than Litecoin?
The poor generation somehow is going to lead the way for a coin to grow 10x the size of Bitcoin.  |
|
|
|
What is bitcoin? Why should it's properties be determined by humans via populist means?
Veritas? I might ask you another question, who or what else should determine the properties of Bitcoin if not human beings? In the absence of sentient AI, it is left to human beings to decide on the rules of the protocol. Fortunately Bitcoin has incentive and governance mechanism build into the protocol to allow this process to happen in a much more fair and free fashion when compared to the state democracies that we are used to. This is a part of the genius behind the invention of Bitcoin, it has solve some of these age old problems like tyranny of the majority and volunteerism. Bitcoin is also less likely to fall victim to populists politics considering that it is in effect ruled by the economic majority who are incentivized to do what is best for Bitcoin. Unlike our present political systems where often the incentives become perverted. If I had to describe what Bitcoin is in one word I would say that Bitcoin is freedom. So cute...  |
|
|
|
if mining pools dont upgrade. they wont accept SW transactions..
That just tells me you don't know what the hell you're talking about. SegWit, as with every other softfork, is enforced when a supermajority of miners upgrade. if mining pools do upgrade to v0.13sw. the merkle tree is now 2 not one. FOR SEGWIT TRANSACTIONS. Regular transactions w/ signature data still contained within original merkel tree still exist ie. backward compatible.v0.12 full node clients will then feel limp and receiving data they cannot check and so they are forced to upgrade.. Are nodes who did not yet upgrade to a version supporting CLTV also not full nodes because they can't verify related transactions? now in my last 2 sentences.. if mining pools and full node clients are upgrading and mining pools are happy to have more than 1mb of data per block(which they have to be to even allow SW).. we might aswell up the block limit to 2mb and not have to make 2 merkle tree's backward compatible. nodes who choose not to upgrade will still process at maximum 1mb of data per block. |
|
|
|
Full nodes continue to validate regular transactions.
Upgraded full nodes validate Segwit data
Happy?
We can't have this conversation if you continue to play stupid.
full nodes should validate ALL DATA.. this is forcing full nodes to become limp and not full nodes. and to require upgrade to become full nodes again.. its not a soft fork at all.. please stop looking at your increased bank account, look outside the box and realise that its a fork.. that does not benefit any true full nodes as the true full nodes would be storing 1.3mb of data.. instead of 1.. while you SW fan boys tell people its only 1mb seriously if people need to upgrade just to fully validate.. then you might aswell just raise the limit to 2mb because people that want to be full nodes will be upgrading anyway.. You can continue to fully validate whatever transactions you are involved with as long as you don't need to deal with SW. If you must receive or sent transactions involved segwit than you upgrade. The security model is exactly the same for full nodes who don't upgrade |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
