Anyone archive the responses? ( they've been deleted by the posters) |
|
|
|
Longest chain is mine, as I run the most nodes.
And what is to stop this from happening on bitcoin right now? If you have the most nodes, you have a 51%+ attack. And what, exactly, is in the 200MB block? Are they all valid transactions in the mempool? And if they are not, how are they going to be validated by nodes? Just because a limit is 200mb doesnt make it so - just like we dont have too many 1mb blocks now, despite the present limit. |
|
|
|
Don't we have to prepare for sybil attacks in a hostile environment?
I feel that it will just derail what is supposed to be a general discussion on the pros and cons of moving away from hard coded limits. We either find that the concept is valid, in which case a discussion on attack vectors is called for, or its found to be unworkable, in which case the attack discussion in irrelevant. Also, its very hard to find attack vectors that are specific to this implementation and that cannot be applied to bitcoin as a whole. |
|
|
|
From a pure tech point of view, what is stopping the sybil attack on BU?
Without having dug much into it, can you answer what there is in place to stop me from setting up 2000+ nodes and adjusting the blocksize to 200MB per block, and thus subverting the entire network to form consensus on a smaller size?
Nodes decide how they play the game. If they feel that 2000 nodes suddenly appearing on the horizon demanding 200MB blocks is the way forward, then thats what they do. If, on the other hand, they are rational, then they wont. I thought we were discussing how it works, you are discussing how to attack it.  |
|
|
|
I'm going to stop including 1 transaction blocks in the full-block calculations though. There were three out of six (all F2Pool) when I looked yesterday. That's skewing things way down.
If the current formula accurately reflects the percentage of total potential used block space that had actually been filled, I would advocate no change. To do otherwise turns it into a meaningless statistic. Better to have the simple unvarnished truth, rather than some manipulated figure meant to illuminate some vague outcome. +1 The existence of empty blocks is more a result of the gaming inherent in bitcoin than any explicit aim on the part of miners. As Richy said, empty blocks are allowed, but they will only succeed where no better block is found in the interim. A chain with a non empty block at its tip will always have more work than one with an empty block. A chain with the most valid work is by definition the longest chain. But if the fuller block isnt found quickly enough, the empty one will be built upon next. So I see no issue with including them. |
|
|
|
In theory, empty blocks *could* be valid but in practice, I think it's fair to say that 100% are from early mining empty blocks (which is a valid miner activity according to the rules but skews calculations and causes the difficulty higher than it should be, causing a lower tps availability)
No, that must be wrong!! According to well known crypto-expert conspiro that can only happen if smelly big blockers get their way!! 3. and making them bigger they are incentivized to mine empty blocks.
|
|
|
|
, if we lose node centralization we lose this special feature of being detached from the same old powers.
Im assuming you meant to say node DE-centralization. |
|
|
|
You are arguing with a paid troll (NotLambChop)
Oh dear, your nervous tic is back.... |
|
|
|
Oh ok. So nothing meant by your opening gambit then:
Perhaps you think that I am trying to imply that Mike Hearn is paying all the shills (re-reading my OP I can see why you might think that)? Nope, not at all. I'm merely pointing out that you are talking rubbish when you say you are not taking sides. you clearly have. Nothing wrong with that, you understand. But just be open about it. And I won't even go into the childish "ZOMG! Hearn is taking over Bitcoin!!" crap. |
|
|
|
Who's side are you on again?  I don't "take sides" but just try and work out what makes sense or doesn't. Oh ok. So nothing meant by your opening gambit then: there are paid shills participating [...] Mike Hearn simply cannot let a "dead horse" die.  |
|
|
|
It has also been pointed out hundreds of times that you can't rely upon zero confirmations so your coffee is going to go cold before you will be allowed to drink it (and if changes are pushed that would allow for tx replacement with a fee then it would be child's play to cheat your coffee vendor).
Who's side are you on again? I thought 0-conf was working quite well for lower value tx's. RBF will obviously change that. |
|
|
|
1. No, until he keeps paying fees high enough to let his tx included, given the traffic of the moment. Which means: at the rising of demand (blocks getting full), tx fees have to go up, because TANSTAAFL.
2. of course. For the very retarded I might use that.
3. and making them bigger they are incentivized to mine empty blocks.
4 on the market value has a price. and free shit is still shit. I don't care at all about Blockstream and whatever, until the hard core remains hard.
If there were ever a 4 Step Plan to eradicate bitcoin, then this would be it. Congratulations, bankster!  Regarding point 3 - How does that incentive work, and why isnt it happening now? |
|
|
|
economic retardation
That's the pathology of (supposedly honest) blockchain bloaters. Refusing to see that increasing the blocksize without providing incentives to dissuade destructive behaviors (from spam attacks to gratuitous crap) is both pointless and suicidal. Nonsense. 1. Are you going to define and provide cut off points for what constitutes "gratuitous crap"? Someone who is legitimately sending 1000 tx today at the average per kb fee, does this become spam if they fail to meet your new fee targets? 2. Please use the more accurate term "charge higher fees" instead of "dissuade". Because that is all you are doing. 3. Miners are currently incentivized to produce the smallest blocks possible with respect to the transaction volume. 4. Letting the Political Bureau of the Central Committee of the Core Devs of Blockstream decide the issue, rather than the market itself seems a strange thing to do in what is supposed to a decentralized anti-fragile ecosystem such as Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
In a stunning display of courage, and with an unwavering commitment to the forging of the truth in the crucible of the dialectical method... Our friend, and highly qualified mentor, has graciously offered to continue the debate of these important ideas rather than retreat like a coward to the wizard's irc clubhouse. Like those who have not #ragequit under adversity before... may his example continue to inspire us in our efforts to fully realize the potential of this bottom-up, community driven effort towards changing the world through a fully decentralized, dialup and raspberryPi compatible, layer 1 settlement network. This, gentlemen is the curtain call.
Waaah! Waaah! Waaah! Waaah! Waaah! Waaah!
Long live Bitcoin!
That was quite a moment. I'm guessing that New Year alcohol consumption was responsible for the odd behaviour of brg444 over the last 24h. edit: And the parody renamed thread here was censored almost immediately and moved off to the altcoin section. |
|
|
|
Well, if they all decide to throw in the towel over there as well, I'm sure we will find a fatted calf for your return.... |
|
|
|
Well, it finally happened. The #1 smallblocker finally blew a fuse and gave up.... Seeing as I can't bother responding anymore to the endless barrage of lies and deception spewed here by the shills (and I certainly understand why others have already given up) it would be a disservice to more naive & gullible individuals to leave the thread open and provide a stage for these scammers.
To the rest of you contemptible, lying ph0rkers understand that by the grace of the internet your performances and subsequent downfall will forever be preserved for posterity and serve as a tell-tale of the consequences of going against Bitcoin. Just make sure the door doesn't hit your ass on the way out.... |
|
|
|
It isn't a good idea to create a cult of personality [....] he also made multiple mistakes and from his programming history wasn't the most competent developer either
There's a difference between coding skillz and vision. Code can be reviewed and improved by committee at any stage. Vision is something you either have or you haven't. Take hashcash for example - A great coder could invent hashcash and turn it into a failed email anti spam tool. However, Satoshi could use his vision to use it as a bedrock in a project that goes on to have a $6.5 billion market cap that we are still talking about 6 years later. But I agree, cult of personality is stupid, But you still have to assign credit where credit is due. |
|
|
|
|
7 mins to 2016 (GMT anyway) Champagne at the ready...
Happy new year to all, may 2016 be a prosperous one for you.
|
|
|
|
Liking your new look there, Richy. +1. Enjoying the onscreen evolution too! |
|
|
|
code to expect the worst and hostile intent, especially for bitcoin which has many extremely powerful adversaries you are correct on that one. Look at the ddos attacks on XT. I suppose its down to who you think your adversaries are, eh?
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
