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 think this is confusing a protocol enforced "limit" and market preferences. 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. 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. This would be like a combination of the two graphs where an anti-spam limit is far off to the right of the graph, and below that miners show a range of preferences on block sizes they are willing to both issue and accept, which looks like your graph on the 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. This is where we should be and the hard protocol limit prevents the market from properly functioning. What "many" have preferences for smaller blocks specifically? Who? |
|
|
|
This is a special fork for those who do not agree with the blocksize scheduled increase as proposed by Gavin and Mike in their divisive altcoin fork, "Bitcoin XT".
This version can be used to protect the status quo until real technical consensus is formed about the blocksize.
This version is indistinguishable from Bitcoin XT 0.11A except that it will not actually hard fork to BIP101, yet appears on the p2p network as Bitcoin XT 0.11A replete with features, yet at a consensus level behaves just like Bitcoin Core 0.11. If it is used to mine, it will produce XT block versions without actually supporting >1MB blocks.
Running this version and/or mining with XT block versions will make it impossible for the Bitcoin XT network to detect the correct switchover and cause a premature fork of anyone foolish enough to support BIP101 without wide consensus from the technical community.
It prevents correct detection of Bitcoin XT adoption in the wild since usage will be known to have been tampered with and thus all statistical data gathered by getnodes can only be considered unreliable. https://github.com/xtbit/notbitcoinxt#not-bitcoin-xtIs there a way to distinguish this version vs the actual XT? |
|
|
|
We have been reminded, by the pretention nodes, that there is always a risk of a largeblock being orphaned, especially the first one, then the next one that is larger, and so on. Not only due to timing, verification of the block, the technical stuff, but also the willingness of others to build on it. In business, the risk transforms directly to cost.
After a block of 2MB for example, the risk is reduced for blocks up to and including that exact size. We will therefore in the future see step increases in the blocksize, with retraction in between due to the varying demand. The typical leg up, stability, another leg up pattern, all market based.
Yes, tip toeing forward according to fundamentals, both technical and economic. "Step increases" and "top toeing forward" won't help much here. If the main concern is acceptance of the larger block (which I think it is and which you seem to imply with the reference to pretention nodes), then 1.001 MB and 8 MB blocks are, roughly speaking, "the same". A node either accepts both (if it allows larger blocks) or it rejects both (if it does not). So while I agree that miners may be reluctant to accept (and especially build on their own) large blocks, I don't think there is any particular reason to "tip toe forward" once they are on a chain that is invalid according to the old rules. Unless, of course, verification and relaying timing is a concern. But then the fork should actually have never been done in the first place and XT failed already during the planning stage. 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. cost of mining a larger block = self regulating block sizes |
|
|
|
|
I see bitcoin price stagnate or drop in the near term (few months).
Lots of volatility between now and when the possible fork resolves itself.
|
|
|
|
|
Satoshi would have weighed in if he thought he should.
I think we wants to see if Bitcoin will succeed without his intervention.
Just like Charles Lee for Litecoin, bitcoin should be able to stand on its own two feet without its founder.
Truly decentralized.
|
|
|
|
XT allows two people to decided what happends to bitcoin..
WHAT
IN
THE
FUCK
IS
WRONG
WITH
YOU
PEOPLE?!
How are you running this node? Go eat out yellen.. fuck.
And Core let's 3? You miss the entire point of CHOICE. People choose to use the client (XT or CORE) not Gavin and Mike. Don't get it twisted. |
|
|
|
block chain size is not a problem and likely won't be for the foreseeable future. Hard drive space is dirt cheap compared to how much of it bitcoin blockchain takes up.  i hear this bullshit since genesis block. the longer chain the longer sync. it is running out of capabilities of regular PC to handle full chain. and the problem is not particulary in space. 1. you werent here when genesis block was created. 2. what is the problem if it isn't hard drive space? RAM? please enlighten us all |
|
|
|
Currently (as of right now) XT is Bitcoin as it operates seamlessly with the bitcoin network. No, the XT is pretending to be Bitcoin, but it's not. It is extending the current protocol in its consensus-enforcing part. Because it says: after 2016-something if 75% miners have done something, we can produce larger blocks. It implicitly states it can do something the current protocol doesn't allow, under certain conditions that you call 'consensus' (which is far from the real consensus). It can disguise as an ordinary client in the meantime, doesn't matter, it won't make it Bitcoin.
It's not like protocol will be changed only if 75% miners agree, it's already changed by adding this very condition. Protocol amounts to all consensus-critical rules, implicit and explicit, that are written in the software. lol how is it pretending to be Bitcoin? Does xt pretend to send transactions on the network seamlessly now or does it actually do it? What part of my reasoning didn't you understand? XT is following a protocol which is different from the current Bitcoin, yet currently it is capable of transacting on the Bitcoin blockchain. But it doesn't make it Bitcoin, as the consensus-critical part of code is changed without reaching actual consensus. When the overwhelming majority of users from different cohorts (the so-called economic majority) start running XT, only then it can be considered the new Bitcoin, not when 75% of miners are mining it. Until then, it's just pretending. "overwhelming majority" now that is subjective. What does that mean 99%, 82%, 93.2837493%? Yeah if the major exchanges and miners move to XT and there is 25% not moved over then what will you say then? Would you concede that XT is the new "bitcoin"? What percentage are you referring to? Nodes? Merchants? Miners? I mean there are too many different metrics to measure "the overwhelming majority" to accurately know that it is true based on some random % that you or any other person thinks up. So what is the difference if 75% is chosen? Is it wrong? To you yes, to some others no. It is a difference of opinion not a difference of facts. |
|
|
|
If XT is so great, no one should have to sell it to anyone, people will just switch.
There is avast difference to discussing XT vs "selling" XT to users. Kind of hard to discuss it if reddit moderators keep deleting posts/threads related to XT and moving XT discussion to alt coin section of this forum. People can only switch if there is enough discussion about XT. They won't just wake up one day and go "i'll with go to xtnodes.com and download the latest client" without anyone previously mentioning it on a forum etc. Ultimately users will choose what they want in the end. All of this back and forth is drama and kiddy BS. Pick a stance and stick to it without the ad hominem or personal attacks (<----directed at those going out of their way to bash others).What is stopping you from making a Reddit for XT? What ENTITLES XT to a right to be in the forum main sections? Like I said earlier, this is nothing more than an altcoin namejacking Bitcoin. Infinitecoin had the SAME issue with "Infinitecoin 2" which was later renamed Colossuscoin after public protest. The developer of that coin tried to use many of the same arguments I see here for XT. This is a game they have played before in the altcoin scene, now they have just decided to use this strategy on a bigger target. This whole idea is carefully crafted to leverage peoples ignorance of the protocol to divide the community in the hopes they will find enough ignorant people to sign on with them thinking they are supporting something genuine. Don't be fooled, this is an attack on Bitcoin. The name of the game is a death of a thousand cuts. If it works once they will do it over and over and over until the community is completely divided and ripping the infrastructure apart. Real distributed consensus comes down to who has the better code, not if they have access to all the main information outlets. If XT is really better, it doesn't matter one bit where people post about it. THAT is how real open source works, not these namejacking political semantics games we are seeing used to try to leverage the launch of XT. As far as the bolded part, you never engage in that kind of behavior now do you? 1. I believe there is a reddit for XT already. But what entitles mods to censor discussion of XT which is directly related to bit coin? Oh right nothing. If XT is an altcoin then Core is also an altcoin as it differs from the original implementation satoshi released right? lol 2. My behavior related to this situation has been appropriate. If you want to bring up drama from years ago, go right ahead. You obviously shouldn't be the one to talk given you were removed from the default trust list on this very forum for your questionable behavior. XT operates just like bit coin as of right now so NO it is not an alt coin. Litecoin is an alt coin. I guess side chains are alt coins too right? They shouldn't be discussed on reddit and are not directly related to bitcoin right? Please spare me the hypocrisy. |
|
|
|
|
439 Bitcoin XT nodes (supporting bigger blocks) 6404 Total nodes
|
|
|
|
I can pretty much guarantee that large miners will support whatever-the-fuck those who they rely on will tell them to. If not, 'poof'. The notable services such operators rely on are networking provided by global providers (if they are big enough to arrange their own peering, and if not, their more consumer grade ISP) and governments within who's jurisdiction they operate. Both the corporate network providers and government regulatory and judicial systems are also quite linked to one another, and increasingly with global trade agreements it really does not matter what sovereign governmental structures want anyway and in so does away with pesky democracy and outdated constructs like privacy, freedom of speech, freedom of association, etc. edit: fix quotes...again. Proof of your claim? Everyone makes their own choices. |
|
|
|
still ramping:  Nodes are great an all, but consensus is derived from miners. 100% of nodes could be running XT but it wouldn't matter if the miners don't. What is needed an each way to track each pool and how they are voting, that way individual miners could vote with their feet and move to pools that match their views. Logical fallacy: if 100% of nodes are running xt then the miners are also running xt. |
|
|
|
Side chains are certainly altcoins.
Maybe in your universe. Lol how are they not? They are essentially watered down versions of Bitcoin lol with a separate block chain. They're not necessarily watered down, they might be concentrated, or some of both, who knows. But either way they are quite literally altcoins that are backed by Bitcoin. That makes them both altcoins and applications of Bitcoin both. Watered down as in the amount of hash rate keeping the chain secure is less than the main chain. Pretty sure that fits an accurate description of side chains being watered down version of Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
Currently (as of right now) XT is Bitcoin as it operates seamlessly with the bitcoin network. No, the XT is pretending to be Bitcoin, but it's not. It is extending the current protocol in its consensus-enforcing part. Because it says: after 2016-something if 75% miners have done something, we can produce larger blocks. It implicitly states it can do something the current protocol doesn't allow, under certain conditions that you call 'consensus' (which is far from the real consensus). It can disguise as an ordinary client in the meantime, doesn't matter, it won't make it Bitcoin.
It's not like protocol will be changed only if 75% miners agree, it's already changed by adding this very condition. Protocol amounts to all consensus-critical rules, implicit and explicit, that are written in the software. Is this a case of selective censorship? You need to learn what censorship means. I'll quote your beloved opponent in case you didn't read his reply to you: Being moderated on a private forum is NOTHING like being suppressed by censorship. What a nasty, horrible lie! Why don't you just track down some Chinese dissidents and shit on their faces? Either way the [trivializing, disrespectful] substance is the same.  What you gloss over as "imprecise use of the word censorship" isn't accidental or mere ignorance. It is a calculated attack on the mods' integrity (IE shaming), and a purposeful re-framing so as to paint them as victimizing brave supporters of free speech ("zomg it's a human right!!!"). As to their (and now your) "concern as being over the subreddit banning or even over-aggressively moderating" let us note that alt-coin discussion is explicitly subject to certain time/place restrictions by the forum/sub rules. If you break those rules, expect to be moderated. If you persist despite moderation, expect to be banned. Duh! This isn't hard, except when thou doth protest too much. It is not honest to, by visitation and participation, implicitly agree with the existing moderation rules and their arbiters (the mods), but then act SHOCKED when playing the Censorship Card fails to win a dispute over/with them. lol how is it pretending to be Bitcoin? Does xt pretend to send transactions on the network seamlessly now or does it actually do it? Selective censorship is where the claim is xt is an alt coin but side chains also being an alt coin are allowed to be discussed. |
|
|
|
Side chains are certainly altcoins.
Maybe in your universe. Lol how are they not? They are essentially watered down versions of Bitcoin lol with a separate block chain. |
|
|
|
Side chains are certainly altcoins.
Yeah and they don't run on top of Bitcoin. They run parallel like any other alt coin. Yet once again it is okay to discuss side chains on reddit? Lol |
|
|
|
But I don't agree that 75% of hashrate or whatever is network consensus.
I predict that miners won't (vote to) change unless there is network consensus. Nobody has anything to lose by going XT. I honestly hope so. If XT is so great, no one should have to sell it to anyone, people will just switch.
There is avast difference to discussing XT vs "selling" XT to users. Kind of hard to discuss it if reddit moderators keep deleting posts/threads related to XT and moving XT discussion to alt coin section of this forum. People can only switch if there is enough discussion about XT. They won't just wake up one day and go "i'll with go to xtnodes.com and download the latest client" without anyone previously mentioning it on a forum etc. Ultimately users will choose what they want in the end. All of this back and forth is drama and kiddy BS. Pick a stance and stick to it without the ad hominem or personal attacks (<----directed at those going out of their way to bash others). You can discuss proposals to change the Bitcoin main chain, but a forked chain that is not also the main chain is an altchain and not truly Bitcoin. [–]theymos -1 points 4 days ago Discussion of hardforks is not silenced. That's why a possible hardfork has been discussed ad nauseam on /r/Bitcoin for the past few months. XT-specific submissions are removed because XT is not Bitcoin.permalinksavecontextfull comments (189)reportgive gold Um did he just contradict himself? Hardforks are not silenced yet XT is a hard-fork implementation of bitcoin when certain conditions are met. Some time down the road. Therefore XT should not be silenced. Currently (as of right now) XT is Bitcoin as it operates seamlessly with the bitcoin network. I love the logic fails even by Theymos.  Sidechains, blockstream, and lightning network are not bitcoin yet they are allowed to be discussed on reddit/r/bitcoinIs this a case of selective censorship? Maybe, I don't really know for sure. Is running x code programmed to change to y code the same as running x code that isn't programmed to change to y code? Your examples of sidechains etc. run on Bitcoin and don't require forks to Bitcoin if I'm not mistaken. They're kinda like satoshidice maybe? Yes with certain conditions that would only allow it to change. Block stream and lightning network are not Bitcoin either yet it is allowed to be discussed. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
