Bitcoin Forum
June 19, 2024, 12:04:03 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 27.0 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 ... 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 [132] 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 ... 223 »
2621  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: August 18, 2015, 03:04:49 AM
2622  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: August 17, 2015, 08:48:00 PM
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.


EXACTLY!

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.

NO! Christ, would you please read the line YOU wrote that I just quoted above?

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.

This is exactly what we have today! A market of miners showing their preference under an healthy anti-spam limit. The bigbloaters would want you to believe there is urgency to ACT NOW. They support their stance with nothing more than coloured charts, failed spam tests, balloons of "future adoption" and "MOAR USERS".

The fact is we are now hovering around an average of 400kb per blocks. There is no such thing as "mainstream consumer retail adoption" anywhere in sight.

You people, you VCs and "entrepreneurs" with your "inclusion" bullshit and startup mentality. It's about time you consider maybe that is not how you build an economy.

Quote
The belief itself may be a case of "everything appears a nail to the man holding a hammer", in the sense that people who have never interracted with any other aspect of economy besides the supermarket counter may genuinely imagine that's what economy is. Still, that makes no difference.

Is this really the "ecosystem" you want to throw "new users" into anyway!? Still reeking with scammers, broken "wallet services" and generally insecure environment. I realize you have new venture fund to raise but MOAR USERS is not going to help you if you can't actually serve them 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.

I'm sorry but that's absolutely broken thinking. It company ignores the fact that miners can always put more hash working for bigger blocks so that they force their big blocks down the throat of the network until smaller miners can only choke on them and die.

That is the true free-market operating. Not some "handwaving" blocksize equilibrium nonsense.
2623  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: August 17, 2015, 08:06:42 PM
what a laugh.

before Peter's paper, Cripplecoiner's were arguing how IBLT wasn't proven, practical, needed or likely to be accepted since we had SC's and LN on the horizon.

now that the argument has changed, they hold up IBLT as "inevitable" and destined to undermine the propagation latency of blocks that Peter's theory relies upon.

such duplicity.

 Huh

Care to support this with quotes or you are just pulling things out your ass as is the norm for you?

Who are the "cripplecoiners" in a story where the debate didn't quite form yet?
2624  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: August 17, 2015, 08:02:30 PM

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 notice you did not reply or comment on my opinion of you guys solutions... Maybe you missed it, maybe you don't care to answer? Either way I'd be curious to better understand the logic behind your proposal.

...


I honestly don't know what you're asking me.  What you quoted seemed like substance-less hand-wavving to me.

All we're proposing is to return to the design proposed in the Bitcoin white paper where "nodes accept the block only if all transactions in it are valid and not already spend" (#5):



Furthermore, I do not take Bitcoin's success as inevitable.  It may fail.  Right now, I see the biggest risk as developer centralization.  The risk of miner centralization due to adjusting an anti-spam measure seems minor in comparison.  

Minor? Surely you've missed this post

Quote
Bitcoin is already centralized. Do you realize that a cabal of a half-dozen people (I'm not talking about the developers) have the power, even if they have yet to exercise it, to arbitrarily control bitcoin? That this power also rests with anyone who controls the networks used by this cabal, which is presently confined to a small number of datacenters? That if they were in the US all it would take is a couple of national security letters for full control over the bitcoin network? I assure you the Chinese government has much stronger strings to pull.
The story of bitcoin over the last two years has been struggling hard to keep bitcoin decentralized in step with wider usage. In this effort we are floundering -- bitcoin scales far better today than it did in early 2013 (at which time it couldn't have even supported today's usage), but centralization pressures have been growing faster still.
That is a story that most people who work on bitcoin scalability can relate to, but which doesn't seem to be commonly understood among the casual userbase.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3h7eei/greg_luke_adam_if_xt_takes_over_and_wins_the/cu53eq3

Substance-less? Your whole argument and proposal is based on substance-less arguments and assumptions. I explicitly show why the idea that having more people deciding on an arbitrary number "because free-market" is utterly broken and totally ignores the dynamics at stake.
2625  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: August 17, 2015, 07:58:52 PM
[...]

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.

[...]
  


Fully agreed. To add to this: This situation exists even today with 1MB blocks. A node might only support 900kB blocks on average bandwidth- or cpu-wise (e.g. some old ARM board) and will drop off when the network actually moves to Mike's cliff hy saturating at 1MB.


and this is precisely why big money outside of China interested in mining will support this proposal b/c it allows decentralization away from China as a result of the GFC.  specifically, the USA should want to see this.  the feedback effects to China will only further this dynamic as their gvt will relax GFC rules if they want to stay in the game.  all good for Bitcoin in general.

Oh my god  Cheesy Cheesy

To paraphrase:

Fuck China, let them choke on blocks they can't handle. Meanwhile let's centralize mining infrastructure in high bandwidth location until the communist party realize their mistake and give everyone more freedom or until our own government fuck us over and decide to control bandwidth themselves.

2626  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: August 17, 2015, 07:45:35 PM

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 notice you did not reply or comment on my opinion of you guys solutions... Maybe you missed it, maybe you don't care to answer? Either way I'd be curious to better understand the logic behind your proposal.

Because if that's all this hinges on:

cost of mining a larger block = self regulating block sizes

We're in a world of problems.


Quote
VI. This is a clerical issue, because block propagation and other considerations incentivize miners to keep blocks small anyway. The 1MB is just a hard limit getting in the way of things, the marketplace of miners should be allowed to fix block size as it seems appropriate.

While this argument has been disingenuously brought by Gavin himself, the fact is that the proposed inverted bloom filters upgrade would allow all blocks to propagate in constant time, regardless of their size.

Some might still ask: why is that?

Quote
davout: gavinandresen: "oh, the IBLT stuff? yes, that’d make propagation O(1)" <<< so with that, there's no network bottleneck anymore, at least no real incentive for miners to keep blocks small, right?

gavinandresen:davout: Miners would only have the meta-incentive of “we can collectively maximize revenue if we make blocks THIS big”

Except miners are not a person. They are multiple, geographically diverse groups of interests each bounded by different resources, costs and infrastructure. I kind of happen to think that this is what is broken with the "nodes and miners should be able to decide on whatever block size they like" proposition. I can also see clear as day through the attempt of many here at rationalizing this behavior as "free-market decides best, how dare you propose centrally designed SPAM CONTROL."

The assumption you seem to make is that miners & nodes (through the magic of the "invisible hand" I suppose) will arrive at an equilibrium of decentralization in some kind of benevolent act "because incentives & game theory". If we consider that the argument about cost of creating large block is moot, the rational then becomes: miners will act in an altruistic way to conserve trust of the network.

These points are not very clear to me. I don't imagine a scenario where several resourceful corporations do not turn this into an arms race that few will be able to keep up with. We are now only beginning to see mining and network infrastructure enter professional stage. If the incentive to mine Bitcoin increases the seemingly amateur and small scale set ups should soon be erased off the network and replaced by massive datacenters that should outnumber any of these small players so as to make their "voice" in the balance exercise of decentralization vs. block size worthless.

You might imagine that as "bitcoiners" realize this issue they will "protest" but I suggest that by this point A. you will not be able to actually become aware of the problem and B. there will be nothing to do about it as the network will have become "captured" because of "network ossification" and the general laziness of the herd which will prefer comfort and stability over change and doubt.
2627  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: August 17, 2015, 07:41:38 PM
The 1MB'ers are happy watching that adoption isn't growing anymore. Stupidity at its best.


Stupidity is pretending that "adoption" and "growth" is all about users & transactions.

Probably one of your more stupid posts.

I'm glad you like it  Cheesy

Your butthurt is expected of typical VC/startup braindamage that can't see beyond "MOAR USERS" "MOAR ADOPTION"!
2628  Economy / Speculation / Re: PnF TA on: August 17, 2015, 06:51:54 PM
Well the block size issue has been a gift to me. Afaik, all crypto coins have this problem with a tradeoff choice between consensus decentralization and scalability. But I solved that problem, so it is just a matter of bringing the solution to market and watch what happens.

I think crypto coins need to be set on auto-pilot I think there needs to be built in some side-chain capability (assuming all bidirectional issues with that can be resolved, else some way to burn coins one-way to a new fork) so that HODLers can move their value out to a new fork gradually as a way to upgrade. This protects the value of the HODLers and allows for new technology. I don't agree with any changes made to the protocol of the coin after it has been stabilized.

Bitcoin was a first revision and the recent post from Satoshi on Aug 15, 2015, admits that Bitcoin needs to be fixed. I guess he has been reading my posts. How do you know I am not (the second reincarnation of) Satoshi? (of course not, lol)

Satoshi has released a white paper. Something you'll never do in your life.
2629  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: August 17, 2015, 09:39:16 AM
The 1MB'ers are happy watching that adoption isn't growing anymore. Stupidity at its best.

Stupidity is pretending that "adoption" and "growth" is all about users & transactions.
2630  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: August 17, 2015, 09:17:26 AM
Quote
Hi all,

I previously mentioned in a post that i believe that technically nodes are capable of handling blocks an order of magnitude larger than the current blocksize limit, the only missing thing was an incentive to run them. I have been monitoring the blockchain for the past couple of weeks and am seeing that even miners who have all the incentives are for whatever reason struggling to download and validate much smaller blocks.
The data actually paints a very grim picture of the current bandwidth/validating capacity of the global mining network.
See the following empty blocks mined despite a non-trivial elapsed time from the previous block just from the past couple of days alone (Data from insight.bitpay.com):

EmptyBlock /Time since previous block/ Size of previous block(bytes)/Mined by====================================================370165  29s  720784  Antpool370160  31s  50129    BTCChinaPool370076  49s  469988  F2Pool370059  34s  110994  Antpool370057  73s  131603  Antpool
We have preceding blocks as small as 50KB with 30s passing and the miner continues to mine empty blocks via SPV mining.
The most glaring case is Block 370057 where despite 73s elapsing and the preceding block being a mere 131KB, the miner is unable to download/validate fast enough to include transactions in his block. Unless ofcourse the miner is mining empty blocks on purpose, which does not make sense as all of these pools do mine blocks with transactions when the elapsed time is greater.

This is a cause for great concern, because if miners are SPV mining for a whole minute for <750KB blocks, at 8MB blocks, the network will just fall apart as a significant portion of the hashing power SPV mines throughout.
All a single malicious miner has to do is mine an invalid block on purpose, let these pools SPV mine on top of them while it mines a valid block free of their competition. Yes, these pools deserve to lose money in that event, but the impact of reorgs and many block orphans for anyone not running a full node could be disastrous, especially more so in the XT world where Mike wants everyone to be running SPV nodes. I simply don't see the XT fork having any chance of surviving if SPV nodes are unreliable.

And if these pools go out of business, it will lead to even more mining centralization which is already too centralized today.
http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010283.html

Comedy fest continues  Cheesy

How long until the XT hype dies off?
2631  Economy / Speculation / Re: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion on: August 17, 2015, 08:20:43 AM


I love short sellers. Every short has to either cover and provide support or to get squeezed and spike into my sell orders.  We're seeing higher highs and higher lows on the daily chart, even if the moving averages look a little scary.  This fork controversy will get resolved eventually one way or another. Block size will be increased even with chain bloat because more and more of those "dust" transactions will be time stamps or colored coins representing title to something.  Processors are getting faster. Bandwidth is getting wider. Hard drives are getting bigger. It won't be an issue.

Meanwhile the fiat printers are printing, on-ramps for institutional investors are being built and the halving just gets closer.

You're gonna hold out that long?

These are day traders... make a few bucks and short attention spans. I'd be doing that too but I see too much potential. I'd rather hold calm for a 200$ trade instead of bust a sweat for a 20$ trade. And miss out on the way up. But there is quite a bit of opportunity... for some reason people are still seeming indecisive...

Either that or the Bitcoins are just being spent in retail.

It's the 3600 coin/day inflation that's putting the downward pressure on price. What's amazing is that there has been an average ~$1 million/day being pumped in to hold the price ever since the $166 bottom last winter.  Miners are selling all or almost all they mine. You gotta love the Chinese. On a macro level, they sell stuff at cost and then lend us the money to buy it. No way that can end well. I'm not just talking about bitcoin. All their exports. If you think about it, Chinese miners are using subsidized electricity so it's actually the Red Chinese government that are providing us all these cheap coins.  It's the only thing China actually sells that prolly won't be worthless in five years.

Do we have any proof of that? I'm really quite tired of seeing this assumption thrown around as fact...
2632  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: August 17, 2015, 08:04:51 AM
..and all pro XT and angry censorship postings are removed from the front of /r/bitcoin. Disgraceful.

Indeed. They will be making "A List' next....

I was told that "book burnings" would be next.   Huh

Can you please get your Theymos Is Literally Hitler narrative sorted out?  It's getting confusing.

And why are you still here in the land of oppression, instead of running free and wild at https://voat.co/v/bitcoinxt ?


And why are you still here, in cypher's world of free speech, instead of running with your soulmates, the supressors and illiberals?

I guess we'll stay here as long as the thread title is not Gold collapsing, Bitcoin-XT UP collapsing  Wink
2633  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: August 17, 2015, 07:55:42 AM
Quote
iwilcox 9 points
If people decide to take their toys and go home because they didn't get their way...

Mike didn't get his way on various PRs. Some wish he had gone home, but instead he decided to wait for a divisive debate he could take advantage of to attempt a coup.

You're part of a group on a plane which is being remodelled mid-flight, with Mike, and out of concern for all on board you refuse him several changes with ill-considered side-effects. He gets up, declares himself pilot and starts swinging a sledgehammer about, crying "Growth at any cost! We're redirecting towards PayPal HQ." Who'd stay on that plane, with the sledgehammer-swinger as the new pilot?

such reason

very truth
2634  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: August 17, 2015, 07:37:10 AM
I don't know if you guys been on reddit today but it's amazing the level of sensible and reasonable discussion that can be had when we cut out the "censorship" and "xtears" crap.

If I'd care enough to use changtip I'd buy theymos a beer right about now.

I see now you aren't Napoleon at all, that's ice. You are Winston.

I wonder at what point will you start to question your role at Minitrue?

Oh sorry, I guess your prefer a r/Bitcoin frontpage full of "WHERE IS MY BLOCKSIZE INCREASE? I WANT IT NOW. STOP CENSORSHIP"

Very, very healthy grounds for "discussion"
2635  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: August 17, 2015, 07:35:08 AM
I don't know if you guys been on reddit today but it's amazing the level of sensible and reasonable discussion that can be had when we cut out the "censorship" and "xt-ears" crap.

If I'd care enough to use changtip I'd buy theymos a beer right about now.

What are you talking about read the second top pined post, he is sleeping and coming in with an axe befor you wake up tomorrow.

The guy's thinking he's creating a time out - he's lost it.

If you have arguments against his post https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3h7eei/greg_luke_adam_if_xt_takes_over_and_wins_the/cu53eq3 then I suggest you share them with us.

This, to me, seems like the workings of a sane, rational mind... but what do I know?

At least what this thread shows is some people share the sentiment. Enough that you would stop thinking this is a "blockstream & theymos" conspiracy.

2636  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: August 17, 2015, 07:24:38 AM
I don't know if you guys been on reddit today but it's amazing the level of sensible and reasonable discussion that can be had when we cut out the "censorship" and "xtears" crap.

If I'd care enough to use changtip I'd buy theymos a beer right about now.
2637  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: August 17, 2015, 06:42:20 AM
Looks like Blockstream mean business. I think first Gavin and Mike will be sued for messing with there business plan and software.  Huh Shocked not that they have a public businesses plan it's probably a class action on behalf of the community.



I bet that Yong kid theymos got a letter telling him he's an accomplice or something.

Another Gavinista who can't read  Huh

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hypothetical
2638  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: August 17, 2015, 06:16:50 AM
Dyslexia confirmed

Beware the power of the butthurt.

Quote
I suspect we need a better incentive for users to run nodes instead of relying solely on altruism.

Turns into

He also thinks we need to HARD fork bitcoin to enable (direct? ...implied) "decentralized" full node compensation?
2639  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: August 17, 2015, 05:58:58 AM
So brg444 thinks those were the words satoshi has waited so long to tell us. How about you iCE?

He always rose above the political BS

Sure, except for that one time when he gave "political BS" the starring role in the very act which created Bitcoin.

Quote

Of course the Gavinistas are never going to accept even the slightest possibility it is him seeing the butthurt induced by his comments.

Confirmed.

The genesis block refers to some sort of impetus for Bitcoin's existence. One I completely agree with, as btc's characteristics are of a somewhat political nature. That said, you must admit this tone is something else.

The email, despite the double spaces, reeked of politics, the kind both of us are guilty of... something distinctly out of character for satoshi, he would have been more objective, more technical. One of us is talking silly.

That it called out politics and attempt at governance does not make it "reek" of politics.

How was he not objective? Would he not be expected to object at different attempts to bastardize his "vision"?

Sigh, if satoshi expected max_blocksize to stay at 1MB to infinity, as important as the distribution curve. He should have damn well said so when he was here.  

I'm beginning to have concerns about your reading abilities.

Where, in the comment, did Satoshi take any position in regard to the block size?
2640  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: August 17, 2015, 05:54:51 AM
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.

 Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy

Pages: « 1 ... 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 [132] 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 ... 223 »
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!