wow intense level of noise coming from the usual suspects ...
having lost the technical argument, increasingly shrill desperation means they're now just trying to force the idea of a needless, rushed, and feebly envisioned hard fork through using character assassination of the very people that are preparing the ground for taking the entire project to the next level...
after all the big block figureheads and their lofty assertions faltered, and their huge numbers being thrown around withered to a rind of 2MB, and err, not much else, what seemed on this forum to have an air of last ditch bargaining has now just become ranting, foaming at the mouth accusation...
none of this noise changes anything though - it can't cover up the fact that their approach - (be it XT, Unlimited, Classic, or whatever the next retread's called) - is inherently inferior.
"withered to a rind of 2MB" lmao +1 for eloquent domination post  |
|
|
|
First they laugh at you, then they insult you, then they toss wads of sweaty money at you and you lap it up like a poodle. Way to cypherpunk, Blockstream!
Please be advised the Bitcoin community, being mostly libertarian/minarchist/anarchist/agorist in nature, is overwhelmingly pro-enterprise. Your appeals to anti-capitalist sentiment and class/wealth envy will fall on deaf ears. Save the Bernie Sanders schtick for the trendy Reddit progs and SJWs. It has no power here!  |
|
|
|
Only 1 out of the 7 people who have commit access work for blockstream. gmaxwell used to but he voluntarily gave up his commit access for personal reasons.
Pedantically, it's 1 out of 5 now. But yes, it just shows the dishonesty and the hippocracy of the attacks. They claimed I was the problem. I _left_ and now it's still "blockstream controls bitcoin core". It's just going to be bullshit lies and threats until the end of time. Furthermore, blockstream was founded by several developers who worked on Bitcoin Core before blockstream existed and those people have contributed greatly to Bitcoin Core. This isn't some company that was founded by a bunch of people who then hired Core devs to do their work, this is Core devs who wanted to do something and founded a company for it. Part of the answer is that there are lot of people who do not want any work done improving Bitcoin. There are people who do not want sidechains to exist; because it undermines their plans with altcoins and, especially, "spinoffs"... or want there to be drama in bitcoin so they can peddle their "hardfork upgrade to ethereum's design" as the grand solution. There are people who do not want strong personal and commercial privacy to exist: They run services predicated on undermining the privacy of users or they own an interest in competing systems that bill privacy as their advantages. There are people who don't care if Bitcoin is decentralized at all, but have raised millions on promises to store random third party data for practically no cost into the Bitcoin ledger. And so on... I don't believe there are many of each of these type; but there are some without scruples who don't mind faking it. And they're super busy spinning up lies like one of the only companies funding bitcoin tech development _ at all_ somehow "controls" Bitcoin core because they employ one person that has commit access, or pay a half dozen people who have contributed out of several dozen while other companies pay no one to contribute. And that is why we see that forums that are easily sockpuppeted like reddit are overrun with fabricated "increase blocksize at any cost" yelling, places like here less so.. and in person gatherings or [cryptographic measurements]( http://bitcoinocracy.com/arguments/if-non-core-hard-fork-wins-major-holders-will-sell-btc-driving-price-into-the-ground) see far less. All this fabricated noise, right out of a GCHQ playbook (not that really think any state actors are involved)-- and it just may win: Because at the end of the day, the few with the courage to stop it gain nothing but the preservation of a dream of decentralized currency that changes the world; and too many others sit too quietly, hoping that others will take the heat. Dreams only go so far. And some decades from now when your grandkids ask where were you when they took the shining hope of decentralized money away, more than a few people here will be able to tell them how they were fooled and fought to make it happen, or how simply stood idly by. The noise generators and disinfo agents shall not gain succor so long as Honey Badger ignores their odious presence. Of course it did nothing but encourage them when you absolved yourself of commit access ('if the system is solid, attack the people'). That was predictable and I hope your reason for leaving was to spend more time coding or fishing or whatever, not to appease the liars and terrorists. The walls of La Serenissima, high and strong, are defended by stouthearted men of mind who stand ready to quickly dispatch any incautious adversary.  Take heart Sir GMAX of Core; the only people feeling fire will be those foolish enough to attack Bitcoin's commanding heights! |
|
|
|
i think this is a turning point.
yes quote me on this.
The losses of nodes over the past 2 months (from the previous ATH) have been gained back and then some in 3 days time.
Like technical analysis on markets this too is in a sense, a market.
ATH is a clear sign of things to come.
I'll be switching over today as well.
This is a turning point. The point where XT officially became a laughingstock.  After so much chaos and drama, you have a mighty 3% of the nodes to show for it? Team XT lost the technical debate, and there is zero propensity for XT gaining an economic majority. Plus, we now have this handy Domination Post from thermos:
Activating a hardfork based on what miners do is really bad. You could easily have a situation where 75% of miners support XT but none of the big Bitcoin exchanges or businesses do. Then miners would start mining coins that they couldn't spend anywhere useful, and SPV users would find that they can't transact with the businesses they want to deal with. The currency would be split, and in this case XT would be in a far weaker position than Bitcoin. The possibility of this sort of network/currency split is what makes XT not a "legitimate hardfork", but rather the programmed creation of an altcoin. A consensus hardfork can only go forward once it has been determined that it's nearly impossible for the Bitcoin economy to split in any significant way. Not every Bitcoin user on Earth has to agree, but enough that there won't be a noticeable split.
Bitcoin is not ruled by miners. In a hardfork, miners barely matter at all. (Softforks are different.) What's important is what the economy does.
Face it old buddy, XT got rekt like Stannis at Winterfell. Now, when can I order my 1000 XMR 1oz Platinum Lealana? Do you want Cryptonic to eat your lunch? "1. First they ignore you 2. then they laugh at you 3. then they fight you, then you win." At what point are we at? 1, 2, or 3? XT is still at the stage where people who know better laugh at it. For a brief moment, we fought XT with NotXT. Then it lost and went back to Step 2, where it will remain forever. |
|
|
|
There is nothing we desire more than to see FakeXT+RealXT "put the [alleged] hashing power over the top." Doing so creates a moment of maximized risk for first defectors, while (not merely coincidentally) maximizing opportunity/leverage for those shorting GavinCoins. If NotXT had a slogan, it would be "resolution via escalation." Don't blame NotXT ('just doing its job') for being the messenger. As basil00 (the PseudoNode guy) said: Drama level at 11, patronising and obnoxious, with an out of context quote to co-opt another... business as usual I see. That comment cuts both ways. It means your pseudo nodes are useless. 750/1000 of the last blocks mined are needed for >1MB blocks. Pseudo nodes aren't mining blocks. So pumping the 'node count' does nothing except make miners more likely to switch for fear of being on the smaller chain. Solid plan TM. Bit it's ok your saviour won't let that happen I'm sure. All MP needs to do is get 25% of miners to run NotXT and for the other 25% to not run XT. That way you can prematurely trigger bigger block creation and then try and do a 51% attack. Solid plan TM. You can't even see yourself. Perhaps my charitable assumption, that you understand NotXT may be used to mine blocks, is incorrect? I hope not!  Sputter, flail, characterize, critique, and deflect all you like my friend. I take the sound of your howling objections to MP's long-standing Gavincoin Short stratagem (and subordinate NotXT decoys) as a minor victory-in-itself. I understand it makes you feel better (at least temporarily) to lambast my position, aligned as it is with Evil Mircea Popescu, in order to shore up the increasingly untenable tactics of Heam.
If XT wins, I will admit defeat. May we say the same of you, should XT be #rekt like Stannis at Winterfell?OK sgbett, are you ready to concede XT lost? Or are integrity, grace, honor, and good sportsmanship not among the values prioritized in your culture? |
|
|
|
Gawd dammit, Ice, I agree with you for once.  Only. The. Code. Matters. So true.  But ya, only the code matters. All of this anti-Blockstream FUD fixating on who wrote the code, why they wrote it, where they wrote it, what they were wearing when they wrote it, what they ate for breakfast, what club they went to last night, and where their pets' vet went to elementary school is an irrelevant distraction. I believe what you are referring to is more commonly called the fullblocalypse. You don't spend much time observing walls, do you? No, the fullblocalypse was last year during the stress tests. That turned out to be a giant nothingburger. All that hype and then...Bitcoin just kept working. Boring! The Bitpocalypse is much worse. sAt0sHiFanClub and I agreeing is only beginning!  |
|
|
|
By burying the whole system in cryptography your creating something that bitcoin isn't
  |
|
|
|
Not sure if many folks on this thread follow the CryptoNote chess thread, but our anonymous GM (letsplayagame) just came out displaying an XMR donation address in his signature. He had hinted his affinity for Bitcoin before and more recently had added "privacy" in generic terms in his sig, but it is amazing to see him sport the XMR donation address now publicly. Is that the dude from Team BBR that #REKT us last time? Rumor has it he's some grand master type! Can you make BTC bets on ICC yet? Maybe the new Brave browser can help with that... |
|
|
|
First I am going to comment on the punched card vs the 256 KB Tandy XT. My experience with the punched card was in the mid to late 1970's where this technology was reaching the end of its useful life. The latest punched card standard was formulated in 1928 and together with the tabulating machine was the primary form of data processing for big business and governments until the 1960's when tabulating machines started to get replaced with mainframe computers. The relevant point here is how much data could one store on a punched card. Theoretically 120 bytes and many people quote 80 bytes; however due to the limitations of the then legacy equipment from the 1920's to 1960's the figure was closer to around 10 bytes. Now if we compare this with the 256 KB Tandy XT we have a factor of over 104 in data storage capacity alone. The computers from that era typically came with one or more 5.25in floppy drives and the floppy diskettes would each hold about 360 KB of data. This difference in storage capacity alone is greater than the difference between 1 MB blocks in core and the 8 GB blocks proposed in XT for Bitcoin.
The next question is why is the ancient history highly relevant here? The reason is business models. While technology changes rapidly business models tend to remain static. The key lesson from history is to avoid business models that are dependent upon technology staying still. This is why Diner's Club and even American Express form a very small percentage of the fiat payment networks today, yet in say the early 1960's they were the dominant players. Their payment card business models were based upon punched card and tabulating machine technology and started to run into trouble with the advent of computers such as the 256 KB Tandy XT let alone with today's technology.
It is here where we see the strength of Monero's adaptive blocksize technology. If the real cost of digital storage, bandwidth and computer processing power drops by a factor of say 104 (Punched card to 256 KB Tandy XT) then the cost of processing 50,000 TPS becomes in real terms the same as processing 5 TPS today. Bitcoin with the Lightning Network can easily become the Diner's Club of Crypto currency (an early adopter that becomes obsoleted by changing technology) while Monero can easily become the VISA or MasterCard of Crypto currency (a later adopter that can adapt to changing technology). As a baby boomer in my late 50's I have very little interest in business models that have a very good chance of becoming obsolete in 10 - 20 years. I prefer instead business models that can adapt with technological change. So I choose Monero.
Good choice. I am also betting on Monero to win the race to replace fiat (or more precisely, tie with for first with Bitcoin). I remember being fascinated with punch cards (from the bank) in the early 80s. It was Reagan's first term; I couldn't have been older than 5 or 6 at the time. My XT had a single 3.5" FDD. But the wizards at Tandy managed to fit a desktop OS with all the goodies on it (undoubtedly influencing my lifelong intolerance of bloatware, as you now see in the blocksize debate). So never mind the fact that of course the easy gains (low hanging fruit) in storage density are gone, and that the barriers to entering the field have gone up as fast as the price per byte has gone down. Storage concerns have never been anywhere near the top of the list of reasons why shoveling Visa-like tps onto a blockchain's layer one is bad engineering. Argumentum ad Seagate does nothing to address the problems and trade-offs with bandwidth/latency, decentralization, perverse incentives (wonky SPV mining, empty blocks), superlinear verification times, and (most importantly) contentious hard forks. My problem with the 'Bitcoin is doomed and should die so Monero can/will succeed' idea is that it contradicts my investment thesis, wherein BTC and XMR are salt and pepper like complementary goods. When you crank up the Bitcoin Obituary machine, part of me wonders how Monero can survive should Bitcoin fail to remain antifragile.  |
|
|
|
Cryptography has never been a significant part of cryptocurrency - even though it may share the first few letters. It works on a system of digital signatures.
ROFLMAO I LITERALLY CANT EVEN |
|
|
|
If the majority of the community agrees that certain commits should not be followed, they won't. Kinda how Gavin and Mike dug their own holes.
Garzik is reportedly now using the same shovel as Gavin and Mike, as he attacks segwit for no good reason. I wonder what make him lose enough self-respect to put up with being bossed around by a bigoted, copyright-trolling shitlord like Olivier Janssens? You'd think Classic's (heavy-handed, top-down) steadfast commitment to 75% instead of the far more reasonable (and miner endorsed) 95% would clue Jeff in to the fact it's not a serious effort. But no.... Oh well. We needed a new Lolcow to replace Hearn anyway! |
|
|
|
All of this anti-Blockstream FUD fixating on who wrote the code, why they wrote it, where they wrote it, what they were wearing when they wrote it, what they ate for breakfast, what club they went to last night, and where their pets' vet went to elementary school is an irrelevant distraction.
yet your 19page topic flaming anyone who wasnt blockstream, was relevant? im guessing you, carlton, Lauda and ciyam are getting a nice bounty win from that $55mill I don't recall such a topic. Link please... Oh wait, shouldn't you already be busy digging up all those old posts where I supposedly " portrayed myself as anti-capitalist?" Or are you so butthurt about Blockstream's $55MM war chest that you are resorting to just making shit up? |
|
|
|
In NoodleDoodle's performance commit he noted a benchmark of 2.5ms/tx on i7-2600. That's 400 tx/sec on a 2011 desktop. A reasonably priced current-gen server (say dual-Xeon 10-core CPUs) is probably several times faster so close to 5K/sec, but I don't know the exact numbers. There is more optimization available still (we aren't using the most optimized elliptic curve asm library available from Bernstein for example, just his sort-of-optimized C library).
With the move to ringCT, it will probably be different (though some of the differences will offset, such as having fewer outputs/tx), and we will have to reevaluate.
Sweet! When I tell people about this good news during my Monero evangelizing, how do I explain why our sig_ops are so much faster than Old Grandpa Bitcoin's? Or should I even bother, since Bitcoin's verification is being fixed (and supercharged) with segwit? I did some thumb-sucking math a number of pages ago: I "built" a single system server that exists today (8-way) that could process 40-something-k TPS IIRC. Edit: found post: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=753252.msg12768096#msg12768096This would suggest to me that 120k TPS would cost ~$200,000 for just the system(s). Assuming a transaction size of 2 KB (made up), we'd need a ~1.9gbps link. Super sweet!!! Watch your back, Visa. Soon... |
|
|
|
Cryptography has never been a significant part of cryptocurrency - even though it may share the first few letters. It works on a system of digital signatures.
ROFLMAO I LITERALLY CANT EVEN |
|
|
|
Gawd dammit, Ice, I agree with you for once. Only. The. Code. Matters. So true. Crikey, isn't that a sign of the Bitpocalypse? But ya, only the code matters. All of this anti-Blockstream FUD fixating on who wrote the code, why they wrote it, where they wrote it, what they were wearing when they wrote it, what they ate for breakfast, what club they went to last night, and where their pets' vet went to elementary school is an irrelevant distraction. |
|
|
|
Even if Monero gradually and without penalty accommodates larger blocks, they will never be able to shovel 5k-120k tps onto Layer One.[/b]
That's a pretty big range. 5K is somewhat more plausible than 120k, for longer term. 5K can fit in a 100 megabit connection and require something like a large hard drive a month to store the blockchain. Not going to be home-based nodes at that point but it could still fit easily within satoshi's vision of many independent nodes in data centers, even small data centers (10 years is only 100 hard drives -- not really much a storage array). Ignoring future improvements in storage technology which I think is ArticMine's point. Considering a peak 60x higher means you would need 6 gigabit connections, also plausible for a small-ish data center. As long as the peak isn't sustained too long, storage wouldn't become a problem, and verification can be almost arbitrarily parallelized. I agree with your main point about there being better ways to scale than jamming everything into one chain though. Small point: The block size can't grow at all without some penalty. Despite what the white paper says the penalty kicks in at the median size, not 10% above the median. The implementation has always worked that way. I'll take that as confirmation Monero can verify 5K tps on something like a reasonably priced server. What about 120k? ~25 Xeon cluster? Once crypto has defeated fiat and we all live in Libertopia, I'll have much less of a problem with full nodes residing mostly in data centers. Of course there is every chance Libertopian homes will have full duplex 6 gigabit connections. Thanks for nifty insight into the spec vs reality of block growth penalties. It's nice to know Monero is protected from block bloating attacks, even if well-intentioned! |
|
|
|
Wish this block size debate could be put to sleep for good. So tiresome.
Sorry, the debate isn't just going to disappear because you "wish" it would. If you are tired, try taking a nap. |
|
|
|
You're conveniently ignoring VertiasSapere's crucial point Core is tyranny  VertiasSapere's crucial point ("True consensus in the original sense of the word is impossible among larger groups of people") has two fatal errors. 1. It uses the No True Scotsman fallacy. 2. Nakamoto Consensus gives us a way for true consensus to be possible among arbitrarily large groups of people. The fact neither of you two noticed those problems demonstrates you have no business telling us how to run, much less scale, Bitcoin. The Nakamoto Consensus: The network is robust in its unstructured simplicity. Nodes
work all at once with little coordination. They do not need to be identified, since messages are
not routed to any particular place and only need to be delivered on a best effort basis. Nodes can
leave and rejoin the network at will, accepting the proof-of-work chain as proof of what
happened while they were gone. They vote with their CPU power, expressing their acceptance of
valid blocks by working on extending them and rejecting invalid blocks by refusing to work on
them. Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism No 90%. No 75% No veto. Just users voting with their feet - or in this case, their CPU. This is the unbearable truth that you need to deal with. If you let the network decide, it *will* decide. It may not be in your favour, or it may. But you dont get to choose. The network does. *yawn* Promises, promises. It's been over a year since Gavin started the Bitcoin civil war, but nothing has come of it besides some good lulz. *snore* Wake me up when some brave miner makes a block >1MB. |
|
|
|
Only the code matters. Good point! I agree. Who is writing the code? I don't care. Only the code matters. Who is influencing the people writing the code, and what are their intentions? I don't care; that's none of my business. Only the code matters. |
|
|
|
You're conveniently ignoring VertiasSapere's crucial point Core is tyranny VertiasSapere's crucial point ("True consensus in the original sense of the word is impossible among larger groups of people") has two fatal errors. 1. It uses the No True Scotsman fallacy. 2. Nakamoto Consensus gives us a way for true consensus to be possible among arbitrarily large groups of people. The fact neither of you two noticed those problems demonstrates you have no business telling us how to run, much less scale, Bitcoin.  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
