I have always presumed jbreher is probably at least in the 4 digits BTC, maybe even in the (low) 5's.... Which is why I have always tried to understand why he decided to go the "wrong way" (Jihan/Ver) with so much at stake  I haven't worked out estimates of jbreher's (or anyone else's) stash, but the man strikes me as a rational thinker with much at stake since a long time. So I also tried to understand the reasons for his choice, and I asked him explicitly. Unfortunately, his explanations with regard to bigblockery/Verism etc. always came short. Disappointing underperformance for a good poster, accurate checker of facts, numerical literate such as he is. |
|
|
|
On the other hand, it would be much more expensive for the attacker to fill the blocks.
Double size, double number of transactions (on average), double cost. IMO the issue is that if the ones who spam are miners who pocket most of the fees anyway, it's much too cheap to spam. Filling the blocks with transactions of ~ $ 20 in fees should mean a large sum of money (regardless of whether they are miners or not). If it's majority miners, it's not "regardless". They can rely on mining a large percentage of blocks, which in turn means a large percentage of the fees they paid get back to them. Obviously, this type of attack is being made to manipulate the price. If the cost of carrying out the attack exceeds the benefits that can be achieved by manipulating the market, the attacker loses the incentive to carry them out. Agreed. IMO the way to up the price of spamming is not having larger blocks, because a significant percent of those blocks get mined by the spammer anyway - be they large or small blocks. A better solution would be to have really widespread mining, so the attackers know that their chances of pocketing back their own spam fees are low. Also, if 2mb or 4mb blocks are filled with 1sat / B transactions, no one would care, because the fees would still be low My bad. I didn't write clearly (and I was not being accurate anyway). I meant 1 satoshi as the transaction amount, not the fee. I know dust transactions are discarded anyway, but I meant "amount as low as can be". A bit of an exaggeration, admittedly. Jbreher recently mentioned the tx capacity of an average computer. I quote: The only serious investigation into the matter has proven that your average 'home' computer today can handle a simple block size increase that will net us about 100 tx/s. And with a fix to core's crappy multithreading design, can handle block size increase up to about 500 tx/s. And that is without looking for other sw architecture improvements.
Jbreher is usually accurate in his factual statements, and his math is usually flawless. However, he does have his bigblocker agenda in his mind when he posts. He failed to mention bandwidth and latency, which are the real bottlenecks - more so than storage or computing power. I would like to be able to express my ideas more widely, but the language barrier does not allow me to do so.
I don't know what else you wanted to express, but you made yourself quite clear on these points. Don't think about the barrier - just say what you mean in the best way you manage. I think communication is just fine. Merry Xmas everybody! |
|
|
|
I think the blockchain needs to have a sliding window. The network could pay a few nodes to be legacy nodes and hold the full history version or chunks of archive (searchable).
The main chain could start 2 years ago with each accounts balance on that day and every transaction since then.
Storage is not the only problem. Bouncing big blocks around also causes bandwidth and latency issues. |
|
|
|
If the block limit of 1mb will inevitably be eliminated, why refuse an increase in the size of the blocks at critical times like the ones we have seen these days?
Among other reasons: because, as our good Mayor implies in his reply, a hardfork is required to increase the block size. A hardfork is not unplanned for, but when it happens it should include a bundle of fixes, not just a quick bandaid. Besides, the bandaid can't really solve the problem, even momentarily: if the spammers are willing to spam no matter what, they can as easily fill double-sized blocks with 1-satoshi transactions. |
|
|
|
I have always said that whilst LN is the only scalable solution it will also need a *minimal* increase in blocksize of the underlaying blockchain more sooner than later.
IF we can agree with that (maybe some people don't agree, it seems) AND unless LN is already around the corner (which it seems it is not).... why not do that small blocksize increase now as a temporary fix for the current network congestion (a fact... whatever the multiple causes including intentional spam) in the meantime?
Because any small increase can be spammed for a small increase of the cost. We need more competition among miners. If possible, we need it before LN even launches, or at least takes off. Onchain transaction fees will likely increase when LN works at full regimen. In any case, we must make sure that when the would-be spammers want to disrupt LN, they tackle that wall of higher fees without the significant "miner monopoly discount" they have right now. |
|
|
|
|
Back from beer time. More than one, actually. One too many, probably.
No dip to speak of. Awright, I'll check back later.
Gentlemen...
|
|
|
|
Hm, I'm a bit envious. I started higher, two increasing chunks on falling prices and then more at 12k. Ready for just a little bit moar around 11k. Any ballpark suggestion for a limit buy order while I'm out for a beer? |
|
|
|
BCash getting the pumpation-sensation by the looks of it.
Have a feeling it's going to be "one of those days" again.
Cheap corn buy orders set up just in case. |
|
|
|
The way I see it if I had BAC Coin and BAC coin could handle 100 transactions per block. If I'm the one mining the blocks and collecting the reward... what the fuck do I care what I spend if it causes everyone else to compete with me?
If I send 0 transactions... everyone else has to spend at least $0.01
If I send 100 transactions for $1 a pop... everyone else has to spend at least $1.01. *cha ching*
I'm going to get the transaction fees anyways, so of fucking course, I'm going to spam BAC Coin for year and years to come because it is GROSSLY profitable.
It doesn't seem like rocket science.
Competition. If you mine half the blocks, on average you know you will pocket 50% of the fees you spend to spam. So you spend 50 to spam 100, and you have a 50% discount on the cost of spamming. If you mine 1/3 of the blocks, you only pocket 33% of the fees. Spend 66 to spam 100. If you mine 1/n of the blocks, you only get a 1/n discount. If n is large enough, the discount is negligible and you spam as much as you spend. That's what a healthy fee market ensures. Unfortunately, he current fee market isn't in good health. The cause is mining centralization, too little competition, so n is small. The 1/n discount for spammers is good enough for their pockets. Let BTC price and mining competition rise, and we'll be rid of the spam. Transaction fees will be due to real transaction pressure only. |
|
|
|
I assume you are joking. Agreed. However, I'm suspecting you're not married or have many close family relations in the US? The moment I brought up renouncing to my wife, and that she would need to apply for visas to visit family, friends, etc., well... you can imagine the response.
[CONDENSED RANT: educating women is pointless etc.] Do you really? Unassume. |
|
|
|
|
By the way, during the last storm I haven't been able to log on here for close to 12 hours. Captcha server wasn't connectable, and clicking on "Tell me more" gave me a "Maybe your target site is being DDOSed" explanation from captcha.google.com (or whatever the server is).
|
|
|
|
Another leg up! Almost there... Ok, can now we get back to the fee/scaling debate? Fees are too damn high!(.gif) Bitcoin is ded. Or it used to be, at least  |
|
|
|
Hello micgoossens thanks for the new game! For going past 24777$, I pick January 4th 2018 I would have said January 7th, but ghandhi beat me to it. But I think the ATH around 20k will be even before that - something like Dec 29th! Breaking 24777$ prediction game
27/12/2017 bikerleszno
31/12/2017 Raja_MBZ
05/12/2017 BTCMILLIONAIRE
06/01/2018 HanvanBitcoin
07/01/2018 ghandi
08/01/2018 savetherainforrest
09/01/2018 explorer
10/01/2018 bicoinpsycho
11/01/2018 Bitcoinaire
12/01/2018 speedwheel
13/01/2018 undeadbitcoiner
14/01/2018 northypole
15/01/2018 ivomm
16/01/2018 maca068
17/01/2018 bitcoinvest
18/01/2018 last of the v8s
19/01/2018 mfort312
20/01/2018 1982dre
21/01/2018 flamast2
22/01/2018 RealMachasm
23/01/2018 willope
24/01/2018 kartala
25/01/2018 orpington
26/01/2018 rolling
27/01/2018 LFC_bitcoin
28/01/2018 jojo69
29/01/2018 CristiTCM
31/01/2018 realsteelboy
02/02/2018 mancroofer
03/02/2018 True Myth
07/02/2018 vapourminer
08/02/2018 alexeft
09/02/2018 siera
12/02/2018 yonton
13/02/2018 Wekkel
14/02/2018 Thekool1s
15/02/2018 starmman
16/02/2018 Globb0
17/02/2018 leveldkrypto
18/02/2018 olesh
19/02/2018 BitCoinBurger
20/02/2018 Paashaas
22/02/2018 icygreen
23/02/2018 erisdiscordia
24/02/2018 phil_s
26/02/2018 Arriemoller
01/03/2018 bones261
06/03/2018 sa_94
07/03/2018 NUFCrichard
08/03/2018 Imbatman
11/03/2018 badream
13/03/2018 erre
17/03/2018 fragout
18/03/2018 fabiorem
21/03/2018 dakustaking76
01/04/2018 somac.
02/04/2018 kurious
05/04/2018 bitcoinbunny
11/04/2018 hairymaclairy
02/06/2018 oblox
05/11/2018 mikenz
31/12/2018 melman2002
12/02/2019 FractalUniverse
18/12/2021 luckygenough56
Maybe because its This time of the year we make a small game Just to call 24777$ (CET) the one with the day of breaking This price wins .25 BTC
The list Will be Made after This post So When a date is taking iT cannot been taken again
When the winning date is exactly in the middle of 2 each Will get .25
Oterwhise closest to the winning date wins
LIST MAKING ENDS 25-12-2017 @ 22.00 cet
AFTER THIS POST NO MORE NEWBIES MINIMUM 50 Posts
SOME HAVE TAKEN A DATE THATS ALLREADY OCCUPIED -fluidjax
-vito5
-wachtwoord
-twocorn
-realmachasm
-ludwigvon
-vroom
-dotto
TAKE DIFFRENT DATE PLEASE GRTS
|
|
|
|
Oh and by the way, now that we're going sideways and things have slowed down, I'll try again to vote 23k for our Dec 31 prediction poll. Oops, I still can't!  How do I vote for 23k on the Dec 31 poll ?
The $22k-$24k
range
is
missing .
Both me and JJG already pointed this out a few days ago, but infofront probably missed our posts. I'm also waiting for him to add that missing range, so I can vote... Ah. Maybe my post will stand out more and get noticed? |
|
|
|
We need to break the mining monopoly. Miners would not be able to afford stunts like this if mining was not monopolized.
Of course you can imagine how the miners would fuck you over with Bcash if it ever got popular.
This has nothing to do with a mining monopoly. Limited space, lots of people, slots go to the highest bidder. What would be better, random choices of what goes into the block, or bigger blocks which is called um... btrash. I think monopoly does have to do with it. Miners would be wary to spam if uncertain about who takes the mining fees, as in 1/n uncertain (assuming n independent mining pools of roughly equal hashpower). So my opinion is: more competition is what we need. A miner in every bitcoin-aware home, as suggested by our resident star BobLabLaw. |
|
|
|
How do I vote for 23k on the Dec 31 poll ?
The $22k-$24k
range
is
missing .
Both me and JJG already pointed this out a few days ago, but infofront probably missed our posts. I'm also waiting for him to add that missing range, so I can vote... Ah. Maybe my post will stand out more and get noticed? |
|
|
|
|
How do I vote for 23k on the Dec 31 poll? The $22k-$24k range is missing.
|
|
|
|
Ok serious question u guys
in what way is Btc better than BCash ?
from what i read online
BCash does everything btc does only better
SegWit Coin has far superior censorship going on ... I mean who on Earth with a straight face can say it's better to have 50$+ TX fees and over 250k unconfirmed transactions ? Just to wait for Lightning Networks? Which nobody knows if it ever will work and it will create on top centralized Super Hubs which Banks are going to control because it requires a license as money transmitter... You two sound like Abbott & Costello. But your lines are a little stale. Inject some more humour in what you say, or an animal fury like Roach, or a peculiar writing style. Think something up, and I won't add you both to my ignore list. |
|
|
|
Since we broke through the 17k support I don't think the bottom is in yet.
My second buy order - a little less conservative - hasn't been hit yet. (Gently prodding with a stick) Just a little more, will you pretty please? |
|
|
|
|
17k is basically holding. It looks like a strong support area. I can't begin to imagine how much it costs to move the price down as they just did. Does anyone have statistics to offer - like number of coins dumped, or a similar metric?
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
