The problem with Peter's paper is quite simple: it ignores reality. It is quite representative of traditional economist failures trying to paint real world issues in a vacuum relying on a bunch of spherical cows. btg444 I'm very much of the opposite opinion of pretty much everything you posted in the last Week or so. In this case also: I found Peters presentation pretty thought provoking. One NEEDS to undestand that this is at first a hypothesis which needs to be empirically tested, but its actually marvelous to try to develop models and maybe later test them instead of just screaming "centralization" and we all go under.... EDIT: and P.S. i find your way how you conduct yourself in this forum pretty annoying. Just because theymos gave you 1 free ticket to the "Show" (vor which no one else applied) doesn't at all mean you are somewhat of larger importance. After theymos gave you the ticket, how conducted yourself in the forum, i felt ashamed what a poor low life your are that is now feeling so important and you would be totally O.K. with censoring peoples opinions. You are beeing really aggressive to people that have a different opinion, putting people all the time in boxes, and fostering a hostile atmosphere. You scream a lot "liar, liar" and in the end it turns out you didn't understand something right... And your thoughts about that the blockchain belongs to the 1% and the rest can go cry as much as they want i found pretty disgusting to be honest. That is totally not the spirit of bitcoin maybe you can join Fox news with your attitude... you would fit in there... Models need to be based on real world dynamics. Yours and Peter's ignore those therefore they are of little use to help use make decisions going forward. As for the rest of your post: I couldn't care less  that's putting it mildly... |
|
|
|
No. Incentivizes the miners to form a cartel, i.e. centralising pressure.
Shall we just have transaction flooding attacks forever, and impossibly expensive transaction fees? It won't work.
Some set of rules need to be put in place to let the block size float freely, but disincentivise the miners to game the system.
Then, the limit can be removed.
I think that's what it really all about, block size limit itself isn't all that important, making attacks impossible is what we really want. i think we need to 1) improve block propagation / the network's topology 2) have miners agree to a bunch of rules that prevent attacks 3) slowly increase block size limit based on fee pressure or some kind of metric that allow block limit to move up with usage slowly. might not be a bad idea to always have SOME fee pressure. Block size limit is about making certain attacks impossible. You don't even understand how Bitcoin works Adam why should we consider your opinion? everyone hates you and with good reasons. yes you are right Block size limit is making alot of these possible attacks impossible. but it's a very indirect way of dealing with these possible attacks. a few well designed rules can rule out these attacks MORE effectively. Yes all the trolls hate me because I call them out on their BS. Surprisingly I was getting along fine with most of the smart people at the conference this weekend. Still, your opinion of me doesn't change the fact that technically you are completely lost as to how Bitcoin operates and therefore your opinion should not be considered. Sorry if that hurts your feelings  your one arrogant son of a bitch. What I find arrogance is your insistence on forcing your ignorance on people. i know you are but what i am |
|
|
|
No. Incentivizes the miners to form a cartel, i.e. centralising pressure.
Shall we just have transaction flooding attacks forever, and impossibly expensive transaction fees? It won't work.
Some set of rules need to be put in place to let the block size float freely, but disincentivise the miners to game the system.
Then, the limit can be removed.
I think that's what it really all about, block size limit itself isn't all that important, making attacks impossible is what we really want. i think we need to 1) improve block propagation / the network's topology 2) have miners agree to a bunch of rules that prevent attacks 3) slowly increase block size limit based on fee pressure or some kind of metric that allow block limit to move up with usage slowly. might not be a bad idea to always have SOME fee pressure. Block size limit is about making certain attacks impossible. You don't even understand how Bitcoin works Adam why should we consider your opinion? everyone hates you and with good reasons. yes you are right Block size limit is making alot of these possible attacks impossible. but it's a very indirect way of dealing with these possible attacks. a few well designed rules can rule out these attacks MORE effectively. Yes all the trolls hate me because I call them out on their BS. Surprisingly I was getting along fine with most of the smart people at the conference this weekend. Still, your opinion of me doesn't change the fact that technically you are completely lost as to how Bitcoin operates and therefore your opinion should not be considered. Sorry if that hurts your feelings your one arrogant son of a bitch. |
|
|
|
No. Incentivizes the miners to form a cartel, i.e. centralising pressure.
Shall we just have transaction flooding attacks forever, and impossibly expensive transaction fees? It won't work.
Some set of rules need to be put in place to let the block size float freely, but disincentivise the miners to game the system.
Then, the limit can be removed.
I think that's what it really all about, block size limit itself isn't all that important, making attacks impossible is what we really want. i think we need to 1) improve block propagation / the network's topology 2) have miners agree to a bunch of rules that prevent attacks 3) slowly increase block size limit based on fee pressure or some kind of metric that allow block limit to move up with usage slowly. might not be a bad idea to always have SOME fee pressure. Block size limit is about making certain attacks impossible. You don't even understand how Bitcoin works Adam why should we consider your opinion? everyone hates you and with good reasons. yes you are right Block size limit is making alot of these possible attacks impossible. but it's a very indirect way of dealing with these possible attacks. a few well designed rules can rule out these attacks MORE effectively. |
|
|
|
I really didn't understand this block size thing.
It is a hot debate recently! IMO it has been discussed a lot! You poll is meaningless! my poll is meaningless? how so? we'll see if there's anyone that believes 1MB limit should stay in place forever. my guess is more or less everyone is onboard for some kind of an increase. |
|
|
|
No. Incentivizes the miners to form a cartel, i.e. centralising pressure.
Shall we just have transaction flooding attacks forever, and impossibly expensive transaction fees? It won't work.
Some set of rules need to be put in place to let the block size float freely, but disincentivise the miners to game the system.
Then, the limit can be removed.
I think that's what it really all about, block size limit itself isn't all that important, making attacks impossible is what we really want. i think we need to 1) improve block propagation / the network's topology 2) have miners agree to a bunch of rules that prevent attacks 3) slowly increase block size limit based on fee pressure or some kind of metric that allow block limit to move up with usage slowly. might not be a bad idea to always have SOME fee pressure. |
|
|
|
|
so after all the discussion that's been happening, i feel it's time for a new poll.
|
|
|
|
if Peter R is correct with his free market hypothesis, then your concern johnnyj is a moot point because miners won't broadcast blocks that take hours to confirm. Pretty simple concept don't you think?
IMO, supply/demand curve in a free market exists only on books of economy schools, it never really happens in reality because the reality is magnitudes complex than this too simplified model. I have pointed several weaknesses in his modeling https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1179712.msg12417772#msg12417772Back to the topic, Mark also said the nodes can limit maximum size of transaction to reduce the relay chance of such transaction. However, this 1MB transaction was intentionally made by F2pool to sweep the dust in those addresses (they contain more than 0.5 btc). And what if someone put 5 BTC in those dust addresses? Then every miner will try to include this mega transaction and cause the network to hiccup. So it only takes 5 BTC to disturb the bitcoin network if every miner is just aiming for the best economic interest its not a question of supply and demand, if miners know other miners will orphan his block if it take >a few seconds to validate then no reward is worth getting your block orphan cuz you don't get a reward if your block is orphaned. i guess miners have to come up with some guide lines as to what constitutes a valid block, or more to the point what constitutes an invalid block. pretty sure it would be really easy to get all miners to agree a block that takes 1hour to validate is invalid. at the same time i wonder how hard it would be for them to agree on no more then 2 seconds validation time.... |
|
|
|
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=261027 Suggests I am an account farmer. #1, no idea what that is. #2, probably not an account farmer as I have 1 account on here. #3, he read my old post and suggested that I was farming accounts because he MISREAD that I stated I have a few reddit accounts. #4, this place is just as shitty as r/bitcoin clearly he is a. theymos or b. riding theymos c. I won't be back to this shit ass forum. It's ironic to wreck peoples trust for literally 0 reasoning behind it. e. - Try to give that account negative feedback, it is somehow weirdly impossible because it is an invalid url. The trust system of bitcointalk is bullshit, any random asshole can make you look bad for no reason at all. But the way you lay out this message, you make it sound like you're guilty of something... itsamemario is a socket puppet. |
|
|
|
The level of hostile emotional appeal and logical fallacy in this thread is astounding.
Why is it so difficult for a group of intelligent people to discuss ideas on their own merit?
there is no tax on being respectful.
With respect, you are unaware of the level of contempt that the BIP101 pushers are showing for anyone who disillusions them of their idea. These people aren't attempting a reasonable discussion in the first instance, and so it is only appropriate to match their zeal with opprobrium. Of course BIP101 is a technical proposal to be discussed on it's merits; it has been dissembled, disliked, and then ruled out already. But this very vocal minority doesn't seem to want to go away gracefully. pretty sure smallblockist are the vocal minority. |
|
|
|
but i have a hard time believing downloading ~1MB about every 10mins is making your internet notably slower. It isn't that simple Adam. I'm supposed to share this information (along with the rest of the block chain) with my peers. That's the point of the peer to peer network. With default settings my node sends (not even including data received) hundreds of gigabytes per month. I have to limit connections to less than a fifth of default to keep my internet functioning at a point where no one in the household complains. Again, I have modern computers with multi core processors and top tier home internet speeds. Maybe I'm just unlucky and someone out there is using my node to re-download the entire chain every other day! Let's see some improvements in QoS (in the Bitcoin software itself) without me needing to be a network admin before we just takes the training wheels off, ehh? maybe i should fire up Bitcoin0.11.0 and see how it feels these days.
Run it for just a month with near 100% uptime, then get back to me. all kinds of improvements should be made... there should be different levels of "full nodes" obviously someone might want to only realy TX to a few peers and someone else might want to be a "SuperNode" connecting to 100's of peers. this is going to take a while to sycn up i'm over a year behind.  Isn't the point of pruned node? a pruned node can't be used as a wallet it can reduce the storage size of the blockchain to MB's but you end up with a full node without a wallet, it verifies and relays TX and that's all it does. i really don't get why you can't have both a wallet and prune your blockchain |
|
|
|
Oh it's open alright, but there's something gently bobbing on the surface... cleaning is scheduled for 2016.
Is it a flower? a tulip |
|
|
|
|
is it normal bitcoin-qt is eating up like 90% of my CPU?
|
|
|
|
but i have a hard time believing downloading ~1MB about every 10mins is making your internet notably slower. It isn't that simple Adam. I'm supposed to share this information (along with the rest of the block chain) with my peers. That's the point of the peer to peer network. With default settings my node sends (not even including data received) hundreds of gigabytes per month. I have to limit connections to less than a fifth of default to keep my internet functioning at a point where no one in the household complains. Again, I have modern computers with multi core processors and top tier home internet speeds. Maybe I'm just unlucky and someone out there is using my node to re-download the entire chain every other day! Let's see some improvements in QoS (in the Bitcoin software itself) without me needing to be a network admin before we just takes the training wheels off, ehh? maybe i should fire up Bitcoin0.11.0 and see how it feels these days.
Run it for just a month with near 100% uptime, then get back to me. all kinds of improvements should be made... there should be different levels of "full nodes" obviously someone might want to only realy TX to a few peers and someone else might want to be a "SuperNode" connecting to 100's of peers. this is going to take a while to sycn up i'm over a year behind. |
|
|
|
running a full node noe  fuck that was easy |
|
|
|
jgarzik suggests in his talk that Fidelity investment company has a beta bitcoin project which it is cannot turn on, because it would "max out" bitcoin capacity and future capacity growth is unknown
Bitcoin is not a service layer for Fidelity investment's purposes. If they need that much data, they can run their proper altcoin or use upper-layer-Bitcoin-technologies. It's sickening to read all the FUD that is posted by altcoiners referring to an urgency to raise blocks. People who fall for this propaganda mostly don't understand, that block size increases do not solve Bitcoin's scaling problem. To scale Bitcoin, additional solutions like sidechains are needed. These are being developed right now. Giving up decentralization for a quick buck will kill Bitcoin. ya.ya.yo! That's because you have the false premise that bigger blocks = centralization. This is only true if you think the free market doesn't work and can't come up with capacity solutions. it almost make 0 sense when talking about 8MB blocks, NO ONE not even china will have a problem downloading 8 retarted MegaBytes. i've fucking had it with these smallblockist nonsense arguments Do those of you arguing for a removal (or increase in size) of the 1 mb anti-spam limit even run a full node? (Adam, it's pretty clear from your comments that you most certainly do not.) Has the spam problem been solved? Including all the spam in the permanent record that we (those of us who care about decentralization) all have to maintain forever isn't a solution. I've been running a full node for several years now. I used to argue how easy it was. It used to be something I was comfortable doing with my daily use computer. At some point, I had to switch to dedicated hardware because of the resources the software was using. Then I had to limit the maximum amount of connections to my node because it was eating so much bandwidth that I couldn't even surf the web properly (hundreds of gigabytes per month). I have modern computers with lots of RAM and fast SSDs. My internet speeds are some of the fastest available for home users. Yet, running a Bitcoin node is no longer something I would consider "easy". This is all with the 1mb anti-spam measure in place! Are you seriously going to try and convince me that an 8x increase in block size limit is no big deal? I'm sure if you build it, they will come. If the limit is increased, transactions will increase (that's what this thread is suggesting after all). More transactions and larger blocks will significantly affect how easy (or difficult) it is to run a full node. I'm a Bitcoin enthusiast. I've been somewhat of a Bitcoin cheerleader for years now. I'm certain that if we simply increase the amount of information that needs to be shared on the p2p network, I will no longer be able to effectively run a full node. If a Bitcoin enthusiast like myself is questioning my ability to effectively run a full node in the face of increasing block sizes, you can bet your ass that is going to have an impact on decentralization. You can go ahead and call that nonsense if you want. no i don't run a full node i stopped a long time ago. but i have a hard time believing downloading ~1MB about every 10mins is making your internet notably slower. maybe i should fire up Bitcoin0.11.0 and see how it feels these days. |
|
|
|
fear of being proven wrong.
They're not wrong. Centralization is already a problem. ok show me a part of the network that is Centralized and the problem it's causing. |
|
|
|
We do not want what you are selling, and so the free market ideology tells us: leave, peacefully. Go.
The free market wants bigger blocks and stay ON chain. Stop standing on its way. Bigger blocks =! centralisation because the market has an incentive to run full nodes at low cost. The free market will come up with these kind of device so you can continue to run a node for cheap https://bitseed.org/The small blockistans have no real argument apart overblown fear of centralisation simply because they don't trust that the free market will come up with capacity solutions. More strawman sophistry: no one is making the arguments you are assembling. They do resemble the position of those who oppose BIP101, but you're attaching those to wild distortions and caricatures to muddy the waters, as usual. Can you ever conduct an honest argument? Seeing as the answer is no, I will suggest a solution: stop talking What are the arguments of small blockists apart the fear of centralization again? fear of being proven wrong. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
