You better talk to your buddies at BTCC about the whole 1 node per economic agent letter to santa principle.
Yes , Todd, Back , and others like myself criticized them for spinning up 100 bitcoin core nodes. I already cited this... It doesn't matter who is doing it , it isn't a good idea and reflects a deep misunderstanding why we need individual humans on the other end of full nodes in a decentralized manner. Please don't take my word for it, ask someone you trust like Gavin if its a good idea for one person to spin up 100s of full nodes or not. I never said it was a "good" or "bad" idea, just largely irrelevant to network security, which works via PoW. Good thing, that. Users are part of the network. Many of these attacks are coordinated. Thus a compromised or malicious mining node coordinating with a pool of NMN could attack a user, or a malicious pool of NMN could coordinate a 0 conf attack, ect....There are many edge cases and fringe attacks that you aren't considering at all.... in network security you need to prepare for the edge cases (even if they are unlikely ) because an attacker will use an assortment of them or a specific one that is tailored to an attack during a vulnerable moment. Additionally, you are ignoring the critical role a human plays in using the wallet, whether they know it or not they are playing the role or a "debugger" or "tester" to report problems to a developer. If you spin up 100 nodes that simultaneously gives a false sense of security and less people testing the software. -snip- We aren't talking about malicious mining nodes (much more dangerous, even all by themselves, somewhat safe tho because incentives), we are talking about malicious NMN. The careful reader will see you have, as yet, not presented the relevant security hole. 0 conf is already understood to be insecure, and is about to be officially and fully deprecated. You do understand that a full node verifies signatures? It will not accept false blocks, even from all 8 connected peers. So the worst case scenario is that it has to drop/ban several malicious peers before it finds a good one. If malicious NMN can break the system... it's only a (short) matter of time until it's broken. Therefore... it's a very good thing they can only be an annoyance, and not an actual threat to network security. Of course I think it is a huge asset to have the ledger widely replicated, and administered by a diverse and global group of individuals... but I fear the comparative importance of NMN to the security of the network is being somewhat overstated in this debate. |
|
|
|
You better talk to your buddies at BTCC about the whole 1 node per economic agent letter to santa principle.
Yes , Todd, Back , and others like myself criticized them for spinning up 100 bitcoin core nodes. I already cited this... It doesn't matter who is doing it , it isn't a good idea and reflects a deep misunderstanding why we need individual humans on the other end of full nodes in a decentralized manner. Please don't take my word for it, ask someone you trust like Gavin if its a good idea for one person to spin up 100s of full nodes or not. I never said it was a "good" or "bad" idea, just largely irrelevant to network security, which works via PoW. Good thing, that. |
|
|
|
This is just what you "wish was true". Fact is, a state actor with with the budget of a thursday office party could spin up a huge amount of malicious nodes... does that mean we're doomed?
So... new nodes get bad data from a malicious NMN, they accept it?
New nodes bootstrap ~randomly from multiple peers, therefore it is important for us to maximize honest and decentralized nodes (1 unique node per economic agent) as much as possible to reduce the probability of this attack vector. They drop/ban the peer after getting bad data... the horror. Er, wait, no... just working as designed. Next. SPV nodes also just accept data from any random (possibly malicious) node on the network?
It more complicated than this because different SPV wallets handle security differently. SPV wallets do not accept nodes randomly, but an SPV wallet can be convinced or tricked into trusting the wrong full node or the an attacker can compromise the full node the SPV wallet depends upon... but it is more complicated than this as I said ... we really need to start discussing the individual wallets themselves to proceed further in the discussion. Now we've meandered off into the security profiles of third party SPV wallets, the responsibility of their respective developers and users... not relevant to Bitcoin network security, the original focus of this discussion. NMN are important for the security of their users, not the network. You better talk to your buddies at BTCC about the whole 1 node per economic agent letter to santa principle. |
|
|
|
-snip-
Juking the numbers gives us a false representation of how decentralized are the nodes we have, plus the fact that not having an economic agent on the other side of each of those nodes doesn't give developers crucial feedback to any potential bugs that are experienced to be reported... ect...
I was going to leave these be... but as you'll probably complain... This is just what you "wish was true". Fact is, a state actor with with the budget of a thursday office party could spin up a huge amount of malicious nodes... does that mean we're doomed? |
|
|
|
It's a good thing NMN (non-mining-nodes) have nothing to do with network security, talk about a wide open vulnerability...
Consequently, it's nice that the network's security isn't dependent on you "discouraging" people from running more than 1 node.
Quoted to lock in the fact that you are unaware of the importance of non-mining-nodes with security and the role they play. Please research this topic before spreading more misinformation. You are ignoring the fact that new nodes have to bootstrap from existing nodes and also ignoring the fact that SPV nodes that are dependent upon full nodes, also ignoring the fact that Juking the numbers gives us a false representation of how decentralized are the nodes we have, plus the fact that not having an economic agent on the other side of each of those nodes doesn't give developers crucial feedback to any potential bugs that are experienced to be reported... ect... So... new nodes get bad data from a malicious NMN, they accept it? SPV nodes also just accept data from any random (possibly malicious) node on the network? Sounds like some serious security concerns here... Got any others? |
|
|
|
Did you see my earlier post on the topic that I linked for ease of reference?
No. I pretty much ignore anything you have to say. It's unfortunate. I'm sure sometimes you say something worth reading, but I've done the calculations; the massive amount of meaningless text that you spew is simply not worth the time to read. Now here's an opportunity for some non-contentious consensus. |
|
|
|
Crassic keeps failing like this means it should be at 1500 nodes next week?
There is a sybil attack occuring as we speak , and the sad thing is that many Classic supporters that are participating in the sybil attack have good intentions and not aware that they are weakening the security of our network. This isn't a Core vs Classic disagreement , because Core devs criticised when an exchange spun up 100 Core nodes... and rightfully so. The intentions of the person spinning up nodes is only is half the problem. If one person or company spins up many nodes that is indeed a sybil attack and weakens the security of our network regardless of their intentions. It centralizes nodes, gives a false signal to the network that its healthier and more decentralized than it actually is, an can be used as an attack vector if that individual is compromised(even if their intentions are well founded) . This has nothing to do with the implementation debate and everything to do with understanding the potential security implications of an individual spinning up more than one node. This should always be discouraged regardless of it being a core node, XT, node, Classic node, ect... 1 node per economic agent- whether it be a company, SPV wallet, individual, miner, ect.... 1 node each. There is no way of stopping someone creating more but this practice should be discouraged as it weakens bitcoin and is indeed a type of Sybil attack. It's a good thing NMN (non-mining-nodes) have nothing to do with network security, talk about a wide open vulnerability... Consequently, it's nice that the network's security isn't dependent on you "discouraging" people from running more than 1 node. |
|
|
|
Wow. The explosion of puss, poison, and vitriol seems to suggest some kind of boil has been lanced.
Crassic has failed, what's next now on the maximally FUD bitcoin agenda I wonder?
Crassic keeps failing like this means it should be at 1500 nodes next week? Meanwhile, Core 0.12 is around 300 nodes? Why don't you guys upgrade? If not for 5x faster validation and "on by default" opt in RBF... at least to throw a little cold water on these Crassic trolls and agents. |
|
|
|
The truth always comes out. When someone asks "When were you co-opted?" And you answer "a couple years ago" ...
How can you believe that Gavin has not been coerced when he openly admits it and - to my knowledge - has never explicitly denied it?
I would be overjoyed if Gavin were not compromised, he always seemed like "one of the good guys" -- if you could provide a link to a page where he explicitly denies any coercion I'd be grateful.
While I didn't like how Gavin used the misleading metaphor of different implementations (with contrary consensus rules) to browsers, His response to being co-opted is perfectly reasonable. Its a silly question to ask in the first place and he has been accused for years of this and denied it many times. It is rather rude to ask it in a serious manner and thus why it was asked in jest eliciting a joke in response. It is almost impossible to know someone is a co-opted or an agent provocateur , and thus we should merely look at and review each others actions instead of assigning a likelihood. Hearn's actions are of high suspect, Gavin still appears to be genuine IMHO. About this: Is there any actual evidence to suggest anybody (British Intelligence or otherwise  ) is actively infiltrating bitcoin discussion forums? Srsly. If not, the implication is sort of absurd and insulting. Innit? After seeing others use the same arguments he's been using (Disagree with me = GCHQ super cereal secret agent), the embarrassment has finally hit 'im (kinda  ). They can't actually believe so many disagree with them, therefore... gubmint agents. It would be insulting if it wasn't kinda cute... like crazy uncle Leo pointing out the chemtrails on a sunny afternoon at the family reunion in Tulsa. |
|
|
|
|
So... I guess the only question left is: Who could possibly be motivated to employ these jokers to spread such FUD, and why?
I caution anyone against holding their breath while waiting for an answer.
|
|
|
|
Wrong. The Toomim Bros in Eastern Washington charge $95/kilowattmonth which translates to $0.132/kWh with discounts if you buy for several months. Their cheapest package (for twelve months paid in advance) is $80 per kilowattmonth which is $0.111/kWh. If anything, I have been overly conservative in my cost calculations.
-snip-
You think the Toomims are running a business... or a charity? I will eat my shoe if they're paying more than 5 cents. They have a facility to run, power is only part of their costs. Edit: Thankfully I'll be eating sushi and not shoe leather tonight (PDF warning): http://www.grantpud.org/component/edocman/1675-rate-schedule-14-2016/download$ 0.01826 per kWh for the first 7,300,000 kWh $ 0.03250 per kWh for all additional kWh |
|
|
|
Cconvert2G36,
interesting distinction between user security and network security.
But, so then, by your logic: really the only need for any NMN is SPV, since
if you're running your own node, you don't need any further "user security".
Would you agree?
I run the NMN at home to have "better than" SPV security and privacy, a fully validated record of all transactions and an interface to make new ones, that I control. I run the NMN on VPS to help other peers on the network, which is in my own self interest as an investor and user of the system. My home node, that doesn't accept incoming connections, is a net drain on the network's resources. This is more than compensated for by my VPS node which will happily dish out terabytes of data to whomever wants/needs it. |
|
|
|
if you know how much power the network is consuming (about a gigawatt or 1 million kilowatts)
and you know how much power costs ($0.10/kWh)
and you now how many transactions are being processed (~4TPS)
We can figure out how much each transaction really costs unsubsidized by speculators.
@ $0.10/kWh X (1,000,000 kilowatts)= $100,000/hr
4 transactions/sec X (3600seconds/hr) = 14,400 transactions/hr
$100,000/14400 transactions = $6.94 PER TRANSACTION
Feel free to check my math, but that's about how efficient the bitcoin network is currently at maximum capacity. If there are fewer transactions, it is even less efficient. Security and decentralization are very important factors, but this is not competitive with ACH and SWIFT, or even credit cards. The way to increase efficiency is by massively increasing the number of transactions while keeping the total power costs almost the same.
THAT is why we want to lift the blocksize limit. We have a very very expensive, inefficient network. Security is great, but too much armor on your armored truck will limit it's cargo capacity.
Your cost per kWh is a bit high (some farms in E Washington are getting 2.5-4 cents for hydro power, allegedly some chinese are getting it for near free), and your tx/s is also a bit high (2.7 or 2.8 from my observations), they balance out somewhat... you're in the ballpark. Either fees paid go up, security goes down, or we spread the cost over more transactions with a capacity increase. If only satoshi would have considered this... smh. ( https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1347.msg15366#msg15366) These artificial scarcity jokers seem (pretend) to ignore the competitive advantages this bestows on altcoins/chains. Our good ol BTC isn't the only game in town, and it will only get worse unless we defend our competitive advantage and network effect vigorously. |
|
|
|
I'm paying 8 EUR a month to run a Classic node on a German VPS at the moment. It feels pretty reasonable to me, I get a ton of HDD and unlimited bandwidth.
(facepalm) dont be a fake node.. doing the same sybil attack game as the core devs.. having 100 people run a node on the same data center is the equivalent distribution of just using 1 node.. the purpose of bitcoin is to spread the distribution. not plant it all on just 10 data centers. for euro150 you can run a raspberry Pi with a 2tb hard drive.. if every block was full thats 20 years of full 2mb block data..(more then 20 years as not all blocks will be full) which works out as euro0.63 a month. giving you euro7.37 spare to put towards getting a better internet package deal for our home connection No need to facepalm. Also, don't fall for the lie that NMN (non-mining-nodes) do anything for the security of the network. If they were important for the network's security, it would be a huge attack vector... it would cost a comparatively trivial amount for an attacker to spin up 50,000 malicious NMN's. NMN's are important for the security of the user, not the network. That said, I run them both ways. One on hardware I own and on a network I control for my own security in making transactions... and on a VPS that has 1 Gbps speeds up and down with SSD storage and 6 TB of bandwidth per month, to help other peers on the network. I have over 40 incoming connections on the VPS node currently. It costs $20 a month, which is comparable to a sandwich and a couple beers where I live. |
|
|
|
|
Currently, counting inflation, it costs about $5-6 per transaction to secure the network.
If you want security to stay the same or greater going forward... either the blocksize needs to increase (segwit is a complicated accounting trick method to increase the blocksize while giving a discount to signature heavy tx's), and/or you need to use another system that might aggregate and settle on the blockchain (which has become expensive to use natively).
Or... you use one of the myriad of altcoins and altchains that are in fierce competition to steal market share from Bitcoin.
Tick tock.
[It's does, not dose.]
|
|
|
|
Almost 80 BTC traded on that euphoria candle...  All of iCE's hard work is finally paying off! Suckas. Today, an entry level C class, tomorrow... Pagani. Excelsior! |
|
|
|
when you need to hire a lawyer to make up FUD. then obviously the illogical code and infrastructure doomsday debate is not convincing anyone. so they need to look outside of their wheelhouse of logic. and enter the realm of fake law
whats next.. health scare that 2mb can cause cancer?
how about it rotting your teeth?
FUD refined to a previously unmatched level of purity... bravo. |
|
|
|
You either are attempting to get it or you are not. You are likely not to have any run ins with me, so long as you are at least attempting to provide fact based posts and attempts at logical opinions and conclusions. On the other hand, when you seem to be talking your book or coming to various illogical and provocative conclusions, then you are likely going to receive some haters.. hahahaha  You think I would give a shit about any of this if I wasn't net long? hahaha hate on buddy  Would like nothing more than to solve this dispute and go back to juvenile market banter, remember those happy days?     I'm not hating on anyone, including you, Cconvert2G36. O.k., sometimes it may seem that I am hating a bit on BJA, but really, I believe that I am hating more on the substance of BJA's posts rather than on him.... .. but sometimes when he or others become so ridiculous and repetitive in their content, it sometimes will begin to seem more personal than I mean my response to be. I try to be very open to any discussions of meaningful and/or trivial topics, so long as we are attempting to grapple with real, rather than made up facts... so long as we are attempting to apply actual rather than made up logic. Sometimes there can be troubles, however, when we are grappling in our attempts to understand facts that are presented to us, which may sometimes lead us to employing bad logic based on emotion rather that real attempts at resolution(s). Little too much grappling involved for my taste... but I think we could maybe do a fist bump or so. |
|
|
|
BlindMayorBitcorn, I can't help but observe that flooding a thread with tripe-- as you appear to be doing-- when it isn't going your way is literally straight out of the GCHQ public communication subversion playbook. I really ought to know what this is I'm a part of. I'm not going to make assumptions about you but it is of interest the GCHQ just was given explicit permission to break the law where others would be jailed kidnapped and tortured for similar actions- http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-35558349They have been given the legal power to subvert, exploit, hack, spread trojans and viruses, introduce backdoors security vulnerabilities, and invade peoples privacy without a warrant. This double standard is highly offensive and we all should consider the GCHQ our enemy. Yeah, that's why it's so insulting to have your honest opinion paint you as a government agent. |
|
|
|
BlindMayorBitcorn, I can't help but observe that flooding a thread with tripe-- as you appear to be doing-- when it isn't going your way is literally straight out of the GCHQ public communication subversion playbook. I really ought to know what this is I'm a part of. Hey, congratulations. You're now an official enemy of Bitcoin. That's pretty cool when you think about it. If you're not already getting paid by 3/4 letter agencies let me know and I'll put in a good word for you. Be warned though that you'll be kept out in the cold to an extent. You won't be invited to any golf games or garden parties because the Blockstream guys get the main perks. On the subject of book talking... don't pretend we don't know about the opinion agent referral bonus schema.  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
