Not sure about the technical details but if an increase in block limit is made by consensus,
like the past 8 years limit X was a known thing. and pools only made blocks below limit X, thus acceptable to nodes even now pools know the block limit today is 1mb so pools have set their maximum as being 0.999mb but actually produce blocks below that. pools can look at the nodes of the network. remove the obvious amazon server ones and other server hosted nodes from a tally and then see what useragent suggestions which the remaining real home-nodes are flagging if say 94% were randomly set above 2mb. 1% at 2mb and 5% randomly between 1mb and 2mb. they would make a judgement call that 2mb was the 95% safe limit where orphan risk was manageable. they would make a judgement call that maybe 3mb was the 75% was okish limit where orphan risk is higher but depending on depth allowance maybe manageable. next they make blocks from 1.000250 and test the water, see what bugs might fly out (like the 500kb bug of 2013 due to a berkely/leveldb crossover that wasnt peer reviewed properly by core devs) if 1.000250 block didnt kick up fuss they increment a bit more. 1.000500, and so on and so on.. as the pools get to the random minority of nodes below 2mb they start to push the nodes preference of that minority and see whats possible without causing much if any orphan drama. once it gets to a certain point where the blocks are getting too much resistance or getting to the minority/majority cut off. pools settledown and see if the network of nodes move their preferences up or hold out at a certain limit. now here is the thing.. this node limit (majority of 2mb) is actually a LOWER limit.. and there is more of a hard limit in the background which would suggest right now that 8mb is ok.. pools wont jump above 8mb (if thats what the nodes have) they would stay below 8mb and aim to stay below the majority of the lower preference limit(2mb) in this example. ... another way to imagine it is take the old 1mb limit as being the upper limit from 2010-2016 with a preference of say 250k in 2010. that over the 6 years rose to 500k and then to 750k.. and then 0.99mb where by nodes had more control of the preference below 1mb rather than just accepting anyblock under 1mb.EG the leveldb bug could have been overted if nodes had a lower limit to warn pools not to push so fast above 500k if the nodes couldnt handle it or just prefered not to go above that wouldn't the mining pool operator with the biggest miners and hashrate be able to decide the block size to be mined with his majority consensus alone?
miners with the biggest hash just means their attempt maybe a few seconds more luckier at getting a block than their competitors. it does not mean someone with 25% might get it in 10 minutes and a second pool with 24% might get it in 20minutes24seconds a few pools nd up being just sconds apart but not counted or even spotted because someone has already taken the lead. so if 25% were cut off the time wouldnt drastically change and so the cat and mouse games between the pools could still cause issues unless clear majority of pools and nodes |
|
|
|
|
lol dinofelis. your still not seeing the bigger picture.
give yourself some time to research abit more.think outside the fiat centralised bubble of servers and truly learn bitcoin.
your grasping one nugget and trying to rub it hard to make it shine. but your not seeing the whole wall of precious things that held that nugget inplace for so long
bitcoin is revolutionary compared to the fiat central servers that you seem so intensely obsessed with comparing bitcoin to, that your not actually seeing the bigger concept
|
|
|
|
Everything will go back to normal after the small kinks and complications of a hard fork have been solved and patched. The greatest concern of it is the replay attacks. You better make sure that you have your coins intact in both chains. I wish someone would be nice enough to write a guide on how to do it. I dont want to hold my BTC in an exchange during the hard fork just to make sure I have them in both chains.
to avoid replay attack, one side would need to change the TX mechanism where TX version bits are something the other side wont understand and wont validate. core wont do it themselves. even if they were the minority or majority.. instead they want to play the victim card and beg others to change so that if attacked they can blame someone else.. rather than take a defensive stance and change it themselves if they win or lose. kind of funny though. for segwit to even achieve some of its promises, users need to move funds over to segwit keypairs so it makes logical sense win or lose for core to just defend and chang their tx versions. or force funds to only be spendable if the output is recognised as a segwit address.. thus it would not be acceptable to any non-core implementation. and also forceably help core get people to use segwit keys. and at the same time reduce the risk of native key attacks by transitioning everyone over to segwit keys. but core wont do it. they want to have their tx's free to be useable on another chain but not other chain used on their. thus cor users can double up but non-core users cant.(theoretically). basically core want to dominate and take advantage rather then protect themselves |
|
|
|
I'm always reading about this Segwit BU problem that could lead to a hardfork.
At the moment i'm trying to get an overview about what both things would do with bitcoin.
But do we have some kind of time frame where the hard fork could happen?
I mean, are we talking about weeks, or years??
core plan on doing something before mid november 2017 non-core implementations are ignoring the bear pokes of 'fork off' and will continually and happily plod along and leave it up to bitcoins natural consensus to decide if non-core implementations activate. no deadlines, no threats. just leave it to consensus to decide. so far non-core implementations have been running for 2 years and not rocked the boat. it has been core that have tried rocking the boat and pointing the finger at everyone apart from themselves. first it was other implementations who just laughed. now core have bypassed node vote. core are pointing the finger at pools (hypocritically after only giving the pools the vote in the first place). |
|
|
|
i. the mempool spam if you check out the stats. one spam event last june/july and another beginning in october/november which has been continual. if you didnt realise these spam events occur when core need them most, to rattle the sheep into thinking core features(new bips) and (empty) promises are needed to (fail to) solve the spam they themselves create.
Do you have any proof of this? spike in june/july then general constant spiking after october.. then http://bitcoin.sipa.be/ver9-50k.pngCSV june july segwit after october P.S the CSV /sgwit data is from sipa (blockstreamer) so yea, not some anti-blockstream propaganda image The way I see it, most miners on both sides profit from this whole mempool spam.
pools dont care much for tx fee.. to them its treated as a bonus not a main income. this is why pools still do the spv/empty block mining because they care more about getting a solution and thus a blockreward. rather than waste time hand picking expnsive tx's wasting he valuable time of solving a block. after all if they cant be first to solve a block then it doesnt matter what tx's they cherry pick.. the block they sbsequently built wont make it as a new blockheight because they took too long being picky. they would rather be efficient and just get a block solved and be happy with the blockreward, where by any tx they can add in without wasting time is a bonus. They even contribute to this problem, by selectively mining around this problem. So blaming Core for this, does not even make sense. BU wants a Block size increase and has more to benefit from a mempool spam to proof their point and to be fair I would say both BU and Core has something to gain, if a perception could be created that a Block size upgrade is very critical. < faked congestion >
true.. but BU have been on the mainnet for 2 years as have other non-core imps that want more than 1mb blocks.. however the non-core imps are not in a rush.. they set no deadlines. they made no threats. they dont have any overseaous (bip9 and UASF) ban hammers to force the issue. they are just plodding along waiting for natural consensus.. but what is very clear is that the mempool bloat dates co-inside with core deadlines and activities. Until we know for certain, we can just speculate on who is doing this. Luke Jr even wanted to go to court to stop a company from running a "stress test" for a new voting system, so we know how they are feeling about this.
Luke Jr has funny opinions. he dislikes women having orgasms unless its in active duty of creating a baby. https://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/60cfep/is_sex_for_pleasure_inherently_morallydisordered/df5p4n0/Is sex for pleasure inherently morally-disordered?
It's okay, so long as the couple 1) doesn't act to prevent conception, and 2) fulfils their positive duty to cooperate in procreation.
and let us not forget how he wanted to change bitcoins unit of measure away from decimal counts down to satoshi. to instead be 'tonal' counts |
|
|
|
but as you say if the market and users dont value it. they just wont use it.
people will just make something else that can be of value.
satoshi did it..
Look, the users will value it if it is called bitcoin. You see, if you ABSOLUTELY want to ride a Toyota, and the ONLY car Toyota is making, is one with a digital speedometer, while you really want an analogue speedometer, you have the choice between not buying a Toyota, or buying their car with a digital speedometer. But as long as there is no competition, Toyota will force the digital speedometer onto you. There's no way you can force them to make cars with analogue speedometers, if digital speedometers are much more lucrative to Toyota. but then you just dont buy it. and suddenly toyota lose customers. you need to grasp why toyota became popular in the first place. for instance if toyota never made a car with an analog speedometer, that user would never have wanted a toyota. oh. and if you think there is no alternative there is. satoshi made the alternative to the centralised banks. coblee made a alternative to bitcoin vatalik made a altrnative to both.. and so on.. get out of the 2 dimensional thinking that bitcoin as a centralised bank will be the only choice and still hold value if it turned into a 2pool 0 node network. your not thinking of the whole ecosystem or even the reason / need / ethos of bitcoin. if bitcoin starts turning into a centralised bank.. people will drop bitcoin and find something else. yep anyone can take the data and say as of tonight the blockchain is blocked off from the hotpotato 2 pools. and instead new blocks will be made ontop of block X. if people want they can run a node on this new network and use their privkeys to make tx's on a new network. thus leaving the hot-potato pools making blocks that they cant spend.. much like toyota making cars that people wont buy. |
|
|
|
merchants could for instance see the 2 pools playing hot potato. and instead the nodes decide to let them play hot potato between themselves and orphan and ban them.. the nodes then start solo mining or using their own asics and leaving the 2 hot-potato pools on their own minority network, ignored by all the nodes whereby the pools cant spend funds with those merchants/nodes
So they are miners then. Not non-mining nodes. You start to get it. And BTW, they just introduced an altcoin with a hard fork. your thinking very 2 dimensional still. please look outside of the box |
|
|
|
And nobody NEEDS that node to forward it. You can get it directly from one of the miners.
then theres no need to use blockchain tech.. if your just API calling a central server.. your really missing the point of bitcoin.. like completely missing the point Of course, if nobody is needing the bloc all together, the coin is worthless. But there is no alternative chain where the coin isn't worthless. So a USER can decide that he doesn't want this bloc chain,
if no one wants the block then the pool is ignored. nodes then solo mine with each other or start asic pool mining themselves or even using a new algo and start building their own blocks between the nodes. that he doesn't want these coins (and lose everything he has on it). But no non-mining node can stop a USER from having that block chain, use his wallet and send out transactions: directly to a miner node if necessary.
part from the user deciding he doesnt like the centralised bank of needing to API data from an only source.. and thus creates his own network.. HMM not liking a centralised database of value, so goes out and creates his own decentralised network.. that reminds me of someone that in 2008 released a white paper with such a revolutionary concept. and release the first version of his software in january 2009... oh yea.. satoshi hmm some other guy later on didnt like the idea sha hashing blocks. so in 2011 he made his own.. oh yea coblee. then there were other altcoins that originated because some people decided they didnt like the original.. If no user values the coins in the market, the miners are making a worthless chain.
agreed. so usually miners start making something the markets will want But they make this one and no other one in any case. And if users want to value coins in the market, they don't need your node forwarding the blocs, they get them directly from the factory (the miners).
but as you say if the market and users dont value it. they just wont use it. people will just make something else that can be of value. satoshi did it.. |
|
|
|
If Bitcoin become uninteresting to Greg Maxwell, there are 99 other devs, am I right? So everything is going to be ok.
core have about a dozen paid devs and 100 unpaid spell checker interns hoping to get a blockstream contract if they remain loyal Says franky1 of the Ver/Wu shill army. lol you will soon learn im in my own army of self opinion. i am not here to kiss ass or make friends. i will continue to just talk frank about what is actually happening. i have corrected people on both sides of the fense. but it becomes apparent that the core fanbase has many scripts and little research that it appears im just 'attacking' blockstream fan-boys. simply because their sales pitches and scripts are so blindingly obvious of having faults in what they say i want dynamics and a network of diverse nodes working independantly using consensus to find some mutual agreement on a single network. i care more about the combination of atleast a dozen differing diverse codebases than any single one. this is where the blockstream army have failed to pigeon hole me into any non-core group with every rekt campaign they have tried. because i belong to none of them. i would infact be in favour of core if they got rid of the corporate puppet masters of blockstream pulling their strings. but core would need to actually act independent and think about the bitcoin network and not some corporate agenda to repay DCG millions. but keep up with the insults, i do love the sound of whistles in the wind |
|
|
|
You state that Validator nodes have no power and it is a myth that they have any impact on the network.
Sorry. dinofelis is correct. Non-mining nodes have essentially zero power of enforcement. When faced with a block, a node has two possibilities. It can accept that block and forward it, or it can consider it an invalid block and not forward it. That is all. What it cannot do is prevent that block from getting to another miner that is perfectly happy to create another block on top of it. If miners are extending the chain, demonstrably accepting those blocks by building other blocks atop them, there is doodly-squat that non-mining nodes can do about it. apart from consider it an invalid block and not forward it. EG 2 pools right now could play hot-potato agreeing to make blocks that are segwit capable.. but try pushing those out to non-segwit nodes.. and the nodes reject them (hence why core needs the upstream filters inplace to then strip the blocks to make it non-core compatible) EG 2 pools right now could play hot-potato agreeing to make blocks that are dynamic over 1mb.. try pushing those out to non-dynamic nodes.. and the nodes reject them(hence why node(hard) consensus needs to be achieved where the majority can accept them) dinofelis's notion is of a centralised network. he doesnt understand the deeper aspects. EG pools are competing. they will find any rule breaking reason to avoid accepting another pools block for own greed and assurance of healthy data/network also merchants can be/are nodes. meaning pools become dependant on nodes if they ever want to spend their coins. .. yes pools can just be 2 pools happily playing hot potato together.. but then thats just a crap coin of 2 users filling their hard drive. they might aswell go to a bank and open a joint bank account if they are only playing with each other. why even use blockchain tech at all if 2 pools are the entire network automatically accepting eachother. but with thousands of nodes where some are services some are merchants the onus on who self governs what, switches. where by the acceptability of a blocks reward becomes the choice of the nodes. because the nodes are the merchants and services the pools wish to spend the funds with. merchants could for instance see the 2 pools playing hot potato. and instead the nodes decide to let them play hot potato between themselves and orphan and ban them.. the nodes then start solo mining or using their own asics and leaving the 2 hot-potato pools on their own minority network, ignored by all the nodes whereby the pools cant spend funds with those merchants/nodes |
|
|
|
If Bitcoin become uninteresting to Greg Maxwell, there are 99 other devs, am I right? So everything is going to be ok.
core have about a dozen paid devs and 100 unpaid spell checker interns hoping to get a blockstream contract if they remain loyal |
|
|
|
You can call them the site admin and integrity judge for all purposes, why insist on calling them the president and the secretary?
shoe on other foot... Adam Back, Ph.D. CEO GMAXWELL Chief Technology officer Rusty Russell Infrastructure Tech Engineer Pieter Wuille, Ph.D. Infrastructure Tech Engineer why not just call them devs for all purposes |
|
|
|
I would rather not to, but what else are you supposed to do? we let this little freak kiklo spam his bullshit without fighting his propaganda? nope. Fight fire with fire. Im just exposing facts here: quoting industry experts exposing BUcoin. Meanwhile all kiklo's has is Jihan's small dick-big hashrate compensation and Roger Ver pumping shitcoins to reduce BTC % dominance. Sad!
meanwhile gmaxwell has his hands on $70m fiat. Monero Zcash and looking to expand into hyperledger. and you think that gmaxwells morals of wanting bitcoin in 100% core control. is "decentralised" and think that gmaxwell morals of REKTing anything diverse and open is "decentralised".. goodluck with that |
|
|
|
also pools wont just jump straight to 2mb on activation day. pools will try a 1.000250 block and see the orphan risk.
Possible, but I doubt it. Part of the fork dynamics is dependent upon BU delivering greater value. If BU forks at 75%, then the 1MB chain will be about a 40 minute average block time, delivering 25% of its pre-fork throughput. With a corresponding rise in fees due to the rise in blockspace supply. The BU chain will be about 13 minute average block time. If BU stayed near its pre-fork block size, its throughput would be on the order of 76% of its pre-fork throughput. If, however, BU went straight to 2MB, then it would deliver 150% of its pre-fork throughput. With corresponding drop in fees. Blowing through the backlog in relatively short time. Cheaper transactions, more transactions: greater value. Leading to increased incentive for fence-sitters to throw in to the BU side. Future increases may be more probing, and therefore incremental. But I would expect the 2MB immediately. They'll fall after the backlog is cleared. the maths does not work that linearly. EG if there are 4 pools of equal hash. it does not mean take one away and the time moves to 20 minutes. because the competition may have only been only seconds behind getting their own solution. bitcoins are not mined based on the combined hashpower of the network. each pool makes their own effort. and the "75%" you mentioned is not 1 pools. here this image will make it a bit clearer  as you can see 75% of blocks is just HALF the network hashrate in this example,(top half of image) but the block timings still are reasonable whichever way you play it(bottom half when they have split) |
|
|
|
Meanwhile, actual experts are exposing BUgcoin for what it is:  2013 levelDB bug(hours of orphans and stalling of chain growth) <- debunks cores perfect record vs some bu nodes went offline but the network continued .. is core perfect? nope: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues |
|
|
|
Consensus hard fork must be decided by almost all the nodes and all the miners and not by 1 giant miner pool.
correct BU is a damn discrete hostile take over, they are trying to fire the chairman/founder of bitcoin if it was a company.,
bitcoin has a diverse amount of SEVERAL implementations and has done for years. Bu, just one of such have no intentions of splitting the network. bu are sticking to consensus as are many. it is core that fears losing control and refuse to be a PEER ntwork along with anyone else. core want bitcoin to be a TIER network(upstream node). core however should not own bitcoin because thats against bitcoins diverse decentralised ethos. core didnt even exist pre 2013. so even core didnt own/invent bitcoin. if you want core to be the owner of bitcoin.. then bitcoin has failed. yep even if core win, bitcoins decentralised ethos fails. however if core just added a couple lines of code to be dynamic. core bu,xt, classic, bitcoinj, bitcoin ruby, nbitcoin, and a dozen others just continue on a level playing field of a PEER network.
if core refuse to stick with a peer network and enable their bip9 and UASF ban hammers(splitting the network). *then if core have the majority, bitcoin still fails as now its 100% core ownership and other nodes as low level second tier downstream nodes with no vote and just sheep following core. *then if core have the minority, the non-core implementations (many diverse nodes) on the majority side stick with a diverse PEER network. leaving core on its minority network alone as its own altcoin. which is what they fear. hence why core are begging non-core devs to cause a split so core can control things.. core does not care about consensus. and is doing all it can to avoid consensus. and cntralise their network. all for the sake of repaying the $70m+ debt hanging over blockstreams shoulders that needs to be repaid via LN fee's |
|
|
|
I for one have no idea why BU would want a public facing president and secretary role if bitcoin is and should have been decentralized forever. Not sure about the technical details but if an increase in block limit is made by consensus, wouldn't the mining pool operator with the biggest miners and hashrate be able to decide the block size to be mined with his majority consensus alone?
because BU is not talking about owning bitcoin. BU is just one implementation. if core adds dynamic code.. core can play on the same level playing field of the PEER network and core can have their own president A.Back and secretary g.maxwell. other implementations such as classic/xt/bloq [already dynamic capable] can work on the same PEER network and have their own president and secretary.. but ultimately there are many diverse implementations working together on one dynamic peer network.. .. unlike core that only want core to be at the top of a core TIER network where core (thier own words): core is the core/engine/reference client of bitcoin core is the upstream filters of bitcoin and all other nodes are either downstream second class nodes, or banned/split from the bitcoin network into their own alt |
|
|
|
If you think #bitcoin is centralized in terms of mining now, this is nothing compared to what it can be when you add large blocks.
you need to realise an ASIC does not contain a hard drive. it does not store the blockchain or validate transactions. ASICS are just handed a hash and a taget to hit.. (less than a kilobyte of data) it doesnt matter if blocks are 1mb or 1000000000000000terrabytes.. the hash a ASIC receives is the same length. meaning no cost to ASICS. ... sorry to burst that bubble of yours |
|
|
|
FYI:
Only 15% to 25% more is needed, before the evolution begins.
as jonald said not out of the woods even with miner flagging.. the miners will still wait for the node count to go up to accept what miners owould produce otherwise they might aswell just orphan their own block in 3 seconds 2017-01-29 06:59:12 Requesting block 000000000000000000cf208f521de0424677f7a87f2f278a1042f38d159565f5
2017-01-29 06:59:15 ERROR: AcceptBlock: bad-blk-length, size limits failed (code 16)
BU want hard (node and pool) consensus.. not soft(pool only) consensus BU have no intention of going bilateral split. it would be CORE that would trigger a split. and its core fanboys and employees begging BU to split so core can play the victim card for something only core actually want (hypocrisy) |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
