I see - another nonsensical argument from the legendary idiot.

You do get that increasing the block size would not alter this behaviour of creating empty blocks and in fact the harder it is to propagate new blocks (because of their size) the more likely it is that we'll see such empty blocks.

Is that simple enough for your simple mind to comprehend?

(it doesn't seem possible that you'll ever actually "score a point from me" but please keep trying harder as it keeps me entertained - and yes I know you aren't so quick on your feet so I'll patiently wait for another 10 minutes or so for you to reply)

You quote that idiot and think it has any weight whatsoever?

How about you get a quote from someone that "actually knows anything about the code" rather than the non-coder Classic sponsor (who has a vested interest to spread FUD)?

Seriously you must think we are all stupid to think you just made some sort of meaningful point with that "redittarded" post.

Strange, but although you are ignorant and keep posting rubbish, you haven't conceded a single thing yet keep trying to attack me with your stupid nonsensical posts.

If you aren't @franky1's alt then you ought to team up with him as between the two of you perhaps you might almost have a quarter of a brain.

Unfortunately it is pointless to try and explain SPV mining to someone as dense as you as you simply can't grasp it (no matter how many times it is explained to you).

Perhaps try hiring a "brain coach" or the like?
(some people might even coach you out of pity for free - but that ain't me as I have a rather low tolerance of morons)

And?

Let me try and enlighten you: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Network


And then this:


Perhaps that might help in particular (if you need any further "spoon feeding" then feel free to ask for it).

So not only have you demonstrated that you don't understand how the Bitcoin protocol works but you have also made a complete idiot of yourself trying to discredit me - still want to pursue this line of attack?

Hmm.. having troubles coming up with a response (or are you too busy getting your ass whipped by CarltonBanks in the other topic).

Sorry - I had to ignore the rest of your rubbish wall of text to ask you to repeat your correction of *my flawed understanding* (of anything to do with Bitcoin - little own SPV mining).

Please explain (I know - it is hard for you to even put more than one sentence of any logical value together but please try)?

(you are starting to act like that idiot @franky1 - maybe you are an alt of his - as his habit is to post walls of text starting with fallacies)

This is because they are doing what is being termed as SPV mining (not normal or should I say "proper" mining).

When you mine in this manner you risk ending up on a fork (as happened last year to the Chinese mining pools after a soft-fork).

So if you had huge blocks and incredibly good hardware (and bandwidth within your pool of miners) then you'd just play games with those that do SPV mining and make them all end up on forks (after a while they would simply give up trying).

I hope you are starting to understand that SPV mining is *not good enough* (and the more you scale things up the worse it gets).

You only broadcast that to your miners (if you are a pool) not to everyone else (you do know how this stuff works or don't you?).

And as stated before if you don't validate the txs in a block then you are going to be easily tricked into mining on an invalid fork.

You should accept the science of software engineering rather than hoping that the "words of a prophet" will solve the scaling issue.

You are forgetting that it takes time to broadcast 64MB (so they could have already mined the next block in advance) and if others are not going to bother validating (which as stated would likely take them more than 10 minutes) then they could easily be tricked into mining on a fork.

It should be noted that the larger that you make the block size the easier such an attack becomes.

That is of course up to them (they might happily continue to reap the benefits of the block rewards and fees).

Of course if they did end up with >50% (you don't actually need 51% but for some reason people are fixated on that number) they might be tempted to take advantage of a huge double-spend opportunity.

If you've changed the rules to say that 64MB blocks are legit then they are not "malicious" by definition (they would be in accordance with the consensus rules) so they can't be ignored.


Because everyone with even fairly average bandwidth and supporting hardware can compete to create the next block (which is what happens now).

The reason that SPV mining is used currently is to try and get a slight advantage that poor bandwidth would otherwise prevent.

Am very glad you asked this question.

Let's say you are a rich corporation with money to waste on the most expensive mining rigs, supporting computers and the best bandwidth available on the planet.

You now expend all of those resources to fill up your blocks with 64 MB of txs (create your own txs if you can't find enough from others in the mempool) which basically no-one else can do (and will struggle to even verify in 10 minutes).

You now *own* the blockchain and get all the fees and block rewards - of course that means that Bitcoin is no longer decentralised but of course you'd try and pretend that you were more than one identity wouldn't you.

The people that think getting Bitcoin to compete with the likes of VISA is just a question of increasing block size are naive at best (or at worst are actually being paid by whoever is wanting to gain control).

Sure - you could change it to say 100 MB or say 10 GB by a very simple coding change.

Result - no-one can verify all the txs in a block in 10 minutes (maybe not even in an hour) - oops - blockchain stops working. But at least it was a "quick fix".

Lesson to be learned:

"Just because something can be changed easily doesn't mean that such a change is actually a good idea."

You do realise that a block as big as 64 MB will take a lot longer than 10 minutes to verify on anything but the most costly hardware?

(so if Satoshi had "got it right" with the original block size then Bitcoin wouldn't be able to even produce blocks as quickly as 10 minutes and no-one but corporations would be able to afford to even run full nodes - but hey who cares about inconvenient truths such as those)

Your patronising tone doesn't really help your lost cause but go ahead and see if Gavin will start telling everyone that they need to do some serious hard-fork "training" (perhaps you can help him to organise a "keep fit for hard-fork" exercise regimen).

Huh?

Where do you get that from - his style was certainly not that of a professional software engineer (more akin to that of either a home hacker or an academic perhaps) but he was certainly quite fluent in C++ (and I've never heard of an economist that writes C++).

Maybe this might help:


https://blockchain.info/block-height/401583
https://blockchain.info/block-height/401557
https://blockchain.info/block-height/401539
https://blockchain.info/block-height/401512

(very recent and all from AntPool)

Whilst it is true that mining an empty block can be done faster as the block reward diminishes the omission of txs for the slightly better chance of winning the block reward becomes less attractive (so after the next halving one would expect to see fewer such empty blocks and even fewer after the following halving, etc.).

This is what is described as the "fee market" and will eventually be the only reward that miners will receive.

Obviously empty blocks means that txs that otherwise could have been in those blocks are instead sitting in the memory pool (delaying their confirmation and reducing the effective TPS rate).

It is interesting that the CEO of AntPool has recently made public his support for Bitcoin Classic (and 2MB blocks) yet their pool is the one responsible for nearly all of the empty (1 tx) blocks at the moment.

(if he is really of the opinion that we need larger blocks now you'd think he'd bother to have his pool fill up the blocks that they are mining currently)