He seems to understand it better than you, and is more humble with what he claims to know too. For example, you earlier claimed that the "Bitcoin does not currently propagate blocks in their full size, only the tx hashes so your idea is not in touch with how Bitcoin network currently works."which is clearly wrong; the Bitcoin P2P protocol supports the propagation of complete (non-encoded) blocks between nodes/miners. Let me rephrase it then: Bitcoin, as it is implemented right now by most if not all miners, does not currently propagate blocks in their full size, only the tx hashes so your idea is not in touch with how Bitcoin network currently works. |
|
|
|
He seems to understand it better than you, and is more humble with what he claims to know too. For example, you earlier claimed that the "Bitcoin does not currently propagate blocks in their full size, only the tx hashes so your idea is not in touch with how Bitcoin network currently works."which is clearly wrong; the Bitcoin P2P protocol supports the propagation of complete (non-encoded) blocks between nodes/miners. Some miners use a centralized service called the Relay Network to improve their propagation rate and reduce their orphaning risk. However, this is not Bitcoin; the members of the Relay Network can be thought of as an Industrial Trade Group less centralized than a mining pool but more centralized than an independent miner operating on the P2P network. Furthermore, the validity of your claim that most miners use the Relay Network depends on the definition of "most." The empirical network propagation impedance is closer to what you would expect if no miners used the Relay Network than if all miners used the relay network. Sure, let's use empirical notions and ignore reality  |
|
|
|
Well, whoever wanted to split the community the way Gavin and Mike did, DESERVES TO FAIL.
You talk to people if you want changes, you do not introduce parallel BTC.
<sarcasm mode on> You're right. Gavin never talked to Greg Maxwell or the other devs that are contributors to the core repo. There was no discussions on the dev mailing list. that three year debate that people talk about...never happened.
gavin just woke up one day and created bip101 right out of the blue, just like that. </sarcasm> Because it actually never did. Until Matt Corrallo brought up the subject on the dev mailing list in May there was barely any debate about this other than maybe some odd discussions. The "debate" lasted no more than two months until Gavin & Mike took their ball and went home crying because there was absolutely no support for their position. And yes! Gavin actually did create BIP101 (or its early form) right out of the blue. To quote Greg Maxwell (Thu May 7 00:37:54 UTC 2015) Thanks Matt; I was actually really confused by this sudden push with not a word here or on Github--so much so that I responded on Reddit to people pointing to commits in Gavin's personal repository saying they were reading too much into it. Well this article seems to say otherwise. https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/bitcoin-block-size-debate-going-since-2013/Do you always rely on others opinion and cannot verify facts for yourself? Great! So you found a forum post spanning exactly 10 days in 2013. And then? Where is the continuous 3 years debate you speak of? You're just like icebreaker. When one point is refuted, you just go onto another one. Yawn.... Point is refuted? Again, where is the continuous 3 years debate? If we're being honest the debate was actually engaged in May and lasted no more than 2 months before Mike & Gavin went rogue. If you pretend otherwise you're just a shameless liar.. what can I say  |
|
|
|
However, the Corallo Relay Network does support a sort of compression. Rather than transmitting all the transactions in a solved blocks, since most the other miners know about them already, it just transmits indices that refer to each transaction (sort of like a map for how the TXs fit in the block).
I think a more appropriate term for this would be encoding - using codes to represent larger blocks of information that is already known by all parties. This is usually way more effective than blind data compression. if minner could communicate 100MB blocks with 250KB of encoded data, this is what will allow bitcoin to scale don't you think. my guess is they wouldn't even need to send the full 64byte TX IDs only a 4 byte hash of the TX ID should be enoght for other minner to identify the TX's included in the new blocks. using this method a miner could communicate a block with 250000 TX's!!! ( >400TPS ) with only 1MB of data What novel idea, maybe you should apply to become a core developer? Here: The relay network includes an optimized transmission protocol which enables sending the "entire" block typically in just a smal number of bytes (much smaller than the summaries you suggest, which still leave the participants needing to send the block).
E.g. block 000ce90846 was 999950 bytes and the relay network protocol sent it using at most 4906 bytes. http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/009942.htmlright this method is already being used by some most miners, but this isn't standard way to propagate blocks. should it be? is this the key to scaling bitcoin? I think yes on both counts. right now this method is netting miners >200X coding gain! Corrected. This doesn't solve any of the centralization or attack vectors concerns btw why? bigger blocks will no longer mean centralization, if a 1GB block and can be sent using 4MBs!  Did you forget about the nodes? 1 GB blocks ? Seriously, this stuff is just beyond your understanding, just stop it. |
|
|
|
However, the Corallo Relay Network does support a sort of compression. Rather than transmitting all the transactions in a solved blocks, since most the other miners know about them already, it just transmits indices that refer to each transaction (sort of like a map for how the TXs fit in the block).
I think a more appropriate term for this would be encoding - using codes to represent larger blocks of information that is already known by all parties. This is usually way more effective than blind data compression. if minner could communicate 100MB blocks with 250KB of encoded data, this is what will allow bitcoin to scale don't you think. my guess is they wouldn't even need to send the full 64byte TX IDs only a 4 byte hash of the TX ID should be enoght for other minner to identify the TX's included in the new blocks. using this method a miner could communicate a block with 250000 TX's!!! ( >400TPS ) with only 1MB of data What novel idea, maybe you should apply to become a core developer? Here: The relay network includes an optimized transmission protocol which enables sending the "entire" block typically in just a smal number of bytes (much smaller than the summaries you suggest, which still leave the participants needing to send the block).
E.g. block 000ce90846 was 999950 bytes and the relay network protocol sent it using at most 4906 bytes. http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/009942.htmlright this method is already being used by some most miners, but this isn't standard way to propagate blocks. should it be? is this the key to scaling bitcoin? I think yes on both counts. right now this method is netting miners >200X coding gain! Corrected. This doesn't solve any of the centralization or attack vectors concerns btw |
|
|
|
However, the Corallo Relay Network does support a sort of compression. Rather than transmitting all the transactions in a solved blocks, since most the other miners know about them already, it just transmits indices that refer to each transaction (sort of like a map for how the TXs fit in the block).
I think a more appropriate term for this would be encoding - using codes to represent larger blocks of information that is already known by all parties. This is usually way more effective than blind data compression. if minner could communicate 100MB blocks with 250KB of encoded data, this is what will allow bitcoin to scale don't you think. my guess is they wouldn't even need to send the full 64byte TX IDs only a 4 byte hash of the TX ID should be enoght for other minner to identify the TX's included in the new blocks. using this method a miner could communicate a block with 250000 TX's!!! ( >400TPS ) with only 1MB of data What novel idea, maybe you should apply to become a core developer? Here: The relay network includes an optimized transmission protocol which enables sending the "entire" block typically in just a smal number of bytes (much smaller than the summaries you suggest, which still leave the participants needing to send the block).
E.g. block 000ce90846 was 999950 bytes and the relay network protocol sent it using at most 4906 bytes. http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/009942.html |
|
|
|
I mean.. we're really trying to have rational discussions about scaling and security yet some of you are ignorant of some of the most basic innerworkings of Bitcoin.
Then you wonder why no one cares or value your opinion...
bitcoin does not currently compress blocks for propagation in anyway. do you think we should explore this idea, or should we stick to 1MB limit because fees? "most basic innerworkings" is that an oxymoron? Bitcoin does not currently propagate blocks in their full size, only the tx hashes so your idea is not in touch with how Bitcoin network currently works. |
|
|
|
Well, whoever wanted to split the community the way Gavin and Mike did, DESERVES TO FAIL.
You talk to people if you want changes, you do not introduce parallel BTC.
I concur. What was proposed was more than risky in this case. 75% is nowhere near enough, and trying to take over power does not make it better. This is one of the main reasons for which I have showed my dissatisfaction with XT and both Hearn and Gavin. Still fighting your proxy war, dear iCEMAN?
XT has already won
Oh the irony that you're failing to see here.
Do you also dislike having several political candidates to vote on?
This analogy is wrong. This is not a democracy. Some centralist/authoritarian devs and teir followers think it is centralism/authoritarianism/fascism, but it isn't. |
|
|
|
Well, whoever wanted to split the community the way Gavin and Mike did, DESERVES TO FAIL.
You talk to people if you want changes, you do not introduce parallel BTC.
<sarcasm mode on> You're right. Gavin never talked to Greg Maxwell or the other devs that are contributors to the core repo. There was no discussions on the dev mailing list. that three year debate that people talk about...never happened.
gavin just woke up one day and created bip101 right out of the blue, just like that. </sarcasm> Because it actually never did. Until Matt Corrallo brought up the subject on the dev mailing list in May there was barely any debate about this other than maybe some odd discussions. The "debate" lasted no more than two months until Gavin & Mike took their ball and went home crying because there was absolutely no support for their position. And yes! Gavin actually did create BIP101 (or its early form) right out of the blue. To quote Greg Maxwell (Thu May 7 00:37:54 UTC 2015) Thanks Matt; I was actually really confused by this sudden push with not a word here or on Github--so much so that I responded on Reddit to people pointing to commits in Gavin's personal repository saying they were reading too much into it. Well this article seems to say otherwise. https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/bitcoin-block-size-debate-going-since-2013/Do you always rely on others opinion and cannot verify facts for yourself? Great! So you found a forum post spanning exactly 10 days in 2013. And then? Where is the continuous 3 years debate you speak of? |
|
|
|
Well, whoever wanted to split the community the way Gavin and Mike did, DESERVES TO FAIL.
You talk to people if you want changes, you do not introduce parallel BTC.
<sarcasm mode on> You're right. Gavin never talked to Greg Maxwell or the other devs that are contributors to the core repo. There was no discussions on the dev mailing list. that three year debate that people talk about...never happened.
gavin just woke up one day and created bip101 right out of the blue, just like that. </sarcasm> Quite correct. Until Matt Corrallo brought up the subject on the dev mailing list in May there was barely any debate about this other than maybe some odd discussions here and there in bitcoin-wizards channel and forum. The "debate" lasted no more than two months until Gavin & Mike took their ball and went home crying because there was absolutely no support for their position. And yes! Gavin actually did create BIP101 (or its early form) right out of the blue. To quote Greg Maxwell (Thu May 7 00:37:54 UTC 2015) Thanks Matt; I was actually really confused by this sudden push with not a word here or on Github--so much so that I responded on Reddit to people pointing to commits in Gavin's personal repository saying they were reading too much into it. |
|
|
|
so core devs control all the nodes and miners now Core devs control the code that ~85% of the network nodes elect to run. This is presently Bitcoin's greatest point of centralization. Right. So it wouldn't be unreasonable that Gavin would would ask for "only" 75% consensus to offset the status quo bias. At least in my opinion. This is more conflation of decentralization of "development" vs. that of the protocol. Consensus refers to the protocol -- not the node client. That the development process is centralized is absolutely no excuse to compromise the basic, basic principle of consensus. 75% to hard fork is 75%, no matter how you rationalize it. If Core doesn't scale expect a divorce at some point. Even if it means forking at 50%. I will personally be fine with it. Enjoy your 0.50$ bitcoin then. I wonder which coin will worth 0.50$. The one that scales and is useful or the one that doesn't and is useless? Please advice. If Bitcoin is forked by 50% the trust in cryptocurrency in general will be destroyed. You really are clueless about what a hardfork entails heh? Meh. The bitcoin that scales will make its way to the mainstream while nobody (expect bitcointalk.org) will ever know about this silly episode on bitcoin history. you redditards and your mainstream. you'd sell your soul to the devil if that could fulfill your wet dreams of moon Sorry if I see the potential of whole new business models and area of commerce bitcoin could bring while you don't. Bitcoin that doesn't scale doesn't fit that vision and that vision will happen without bitcoin that doesn't scale. Your vision for Bitcoin is, quite honestly, pathetic. Step outside for a minute and realise there are things more important to disrupt then "commerce". I guess that's the consumer in you speaking...Don't worry, we'll have a sidechain for you to buy your lattes. |
|
|
|
|
I mean.. we're really trying to have rational discussions about scaling and security yet some of you are ignorant of some of the most basic innerworkings of Bitcoin.
Then you wonder why no one cares or value your opinion...
|
|
|
|
so core devs control all the nodes and miners now Core devs control the code that ~85% of the network nodes elect to run. This is presently Bitcoin's greatest point of centralization. Right. So it wouldn't be unreasonable that Gavin would would ask for "only" 75% consensus to offset the status quo bias. At least in my opinion. This is more conflation of decentralization of "development" vs. that of the protocol. Consensus refers to the protocol -- not the node client. That the development process is centralized is absolutely no excuse to compromise the basic, basic principle of consensus. 75% to hard fork is 75%, no matter how you rationalize it. If Core doesn't scale expect a divorce at some point. Even if it means forking at 50%. I will personally be fine with it. Enjoy your 0.50$ bitcoin then. I wonder which coin will worth 0.50$. The one that scales and is useful or the one that doesn't and is useless? Please advice. If Bitcoin is forked by 50% the trust in cryptocurrency in general will be destroyed. You really are clueless about what a hardfork entails heh? Meh. The bitcoin that scales will make its way to the mainstream while nobody (expect bitcointalk.org) will ever know about this silly episode on bitcoin history. you redditards and your mainstream. you'd sell your soul to the devil if that could fulfill your wet dreams of moon |
|
|
|
so core devs control all the nodes and miners now Core devs control the code that ~85% of the network nodes elect to run. This is presently Bitcoin's greatest point of centralization. Right. So it wouldn't be unreasonable that Gavin would would ask for "only" 75% consensus to offset the status quo bias. At least in my opinion. This is more conflation of decentralization of "development" vs. that of the protocol. Consensus refers to the protocol -- not the node client. That the development process is centralized is absolutely no excuse to compromise the basic, basic principle of consensus. 75% to hard fork is 75%, no matter how you rationalize it. If Core doesn't scale expect a divorce at some point. Even if it means forking at 50%. I will personally be fine with it. Enjoy your 0.50$ bitcoin then. I wonder which coin will worth 0.50$. The one that scales and is useful or the one that doesn't and is useless? Please advice. If Bitcoin is forked by 50% the trust in cryptocurrency in general will be destroyed. You really are clueless about what a hardfork entails heh? |
|
|
|
so core devs control all the nodes and miners now Core devs control the code that ~85% of the network nodes elect to run. This is presently Bitcoin's greatest point of centralization. Right. So it wouldn't be unreasonable that Gavin would would ask for "only" 75% consensus to offset the status quo bias. At least in my opinion. This is more conflation of decentralization of "development" vs. that of the protocol. Consensus refers to the protocol -- not the node client. That the development process is centralized is absolutely no excuse to compromise the basic, basic principle of consensus. 75% to hard fork is 75%, no matter how you rationalize it. If Core doesn't scale expect a divorce at some point. Even if it means forking at 50%. I will personally be fine with it. Enjoy your 0.50$ bitcoin then. |
|
|
|
Already most of people here recognise XT like danger for bicoin,whatdo you want from bitcoin core,everything was going in right direction,maybe slow but right way.And now XT developers are trying to say that thay came to rescue btc from crash,lies.lies,lies
"maybe slow"?? Bullshit! This is the fucking Internet. We want big ass blocks and we want them now! . We don't have time too wait. It is not certain that there will be ANY block size increase and there won't be certainty until it actually happens. If they at least implemented Garzik's 2MB blocks while we continued to work on a more permanent solution THEN I would be convinced that there is some assurance that a solution will come before the network gets jammed like the I5 in Los Angeles during rush hour. If the debate is about scalability vs. decentralization or scalability vs. security (and youy damn well know it is), then there is NO commitment from a critical mass of core devs to increase blocksize with minimal impact on the other characteristics. It's till a very much "IF" debate and not a "when and by how much" debate. That is not progress. That is unacceptable. Maybe you could sell them some block space? What if we all chip in? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
