|
Who needs Bitcoin in a democratic society?
The minority.
|
|
|
|
Let's get the BU people together and set a plan to initiate the fork now.
Yes, please! OK - we've got about the same hash power as Blockstream now. We are calling our fork 'Bitcoin'. Yours is called 'Blockstream Bitcoin' My fork? Whatchutalkinbout Willis? I'll have coins on both sides. |
|
|
|
at that point isn't better for them to just attack the network with 51%? i see no sense here
A 51% attack is a once-off basically. If you do it successfully, the users will simply swap to a different mining algorithm which will render all of the attacker's expensive hardware worthless, so you had better make bank. Looking for less disruptive, sustainable ways to earn extra is therefore more sensible. That said, this particular "attack" is pointless for the reasons I mentioned above. |
|
|
|
|
For this to work, you would have to have close to 100% of the miners colluding with you. If not...
The blocks that are not mined by the colluding miners would be full of high fee paying transactions that are all legitimate transactions in the eyes of the non-colluding miner. While the blocks mined by colluding miners are partially full of legitimate high fee paying transactions and partially full of transactions crafted by the colluding pools to increase the overall transaction fees.
Therefor, non-colluding miners would be earning more per block as all of the fees in their blocks are actual income. The colluding miners would be earning less per block because some of the fees in their blocks are just their own money being returned to them.
Eventually the non-colluding miners would be able to purchase more hardware with their greater profit and slowly erode the colluding miners percentage of the network.
|
|
|
|
Transaction fees MUST replace the block subsidy to secure the network.
Yes, transaction fees must replace the block subsidy. So under which scenario would more fees be generated? in a couple decades!! not any time soon We are already experiencing resistance to tiny fees due to eight years of block subsidies providing the network's security. If we kick that can further down the road, there will be even more resistance. I see nothing wrong with some healthy competition to get fast confirmations. The sooner this transition from block subsidies to transaction fees begins, the smoother it will play out over time. Some spoiled brats are going to cry because buying a coffee with the most secure decentralized ledger on the planet is unreasonable. Expecting censorship-proof transactions for daily, mundane purchases is a waste of resources, and unreasonable. Increasing the burden of every full node operator, who must keep a complete list of every transaction in the history of Bitcoin, so someone can buy a coffee... is unreasonable. Finally, calling everyone who disagrees with you a "corporate shill" is not an argument. It's as bad as assuming everyone who wants bigger blocks ultimately wants to increase the 21 million coin limit because inflation will be the only way forward to pay for network security when there is no longer any reason to keep the block size small since only a handful of corporate operated full nodes will exist due to the amount of resources required for massive block chain upkeep when every transaction under the sun is written directly into the fucking permanent ledger! |
|
|
|
|
Transaction fees MUST replace the block subsidy to secure the network.
Competition for censorship-proof transactions on the most secure decentralized ledger in the world is a good thing.
Only spoiled brats who want to send pennies around the world, instantly, for free, are crying. They could care less about Bitcoin's unique use case which makes it truly valuable.
|
|
|
|
You can never convince anyone with a brain and with a vision to hold long term to put BUcoin team on charge.
Shush! The idea is to get the BU people to fork off... |
|
|
|
Let's get the BU people together and set a plan to initiate the fork now.
Yes, please! |
|
|
|
 Anything in the debug.log? No, it abruptly ends. It doesn't display the normal shut down info. That is quite strange. Can you find any windows crash logs? Do you happen to be running it with --disablewallet? If so, then this bug is known and has been fixed for the next rc. Yes, I run with --disablewallet. |
|
|
|
Ran this for 16 hours and had a two issues.
Did not shut down cleanly (popped up windows error message).
What was the error? Anything in the debug.log? No, it abruptly ends. It doesn't display the normal shut down info. When I started .13.1 immediately after, I noticed it was 2 hours behind even though I had 8 connections before shutting down .14.
IIRC it will rewind the blockchain a bit on the next start if the shut down was unclean so that any errors in the blockchain and the databases can be caught and fixed. The above error occurs every time I shut down .14 yet I haven't had a repeat of needing to sync the last two hours upon restart, regardless of whether I start .13.1 or .14 after getting the error. |
|
|
|
|
Ran this for 16 hours and had a two issues.
Did not shut down cleanly (popped up windows error message).
When I started .13.1 immediately after, I noticed it was 2 hours behind even though I had 8 connections before shutting down .14.
This is on a clean (besides Core .13.1) Windows 10 install that is only used as a Core node.
|
|
|
|
You found the keys to a car. Can you take the car? Is it legal?
More like... Someone has signed the title to their car, had it stamped by a notary, then parked it in a public parking lot with the title and keys lying on top. If you've published your private keys in a public space, you've given up everything that would constitute "ownership" when it comes to Bitcoin. It's irrelevant whether you've done this intentionally or accidentally. Archaic property rights laws simply can't apply to Bitcoin "ownership". My signature is the only "rule" when it comes to Bitcoin "ownership". That said, I don't believe the OP. I think he is simply trying to incite discussion. |
|
|
|
Most people call me troll or shill, just for pointing out legitimate criticisms? What you can't criticize Bitcoin now? Is Bitcoin just an echochamber of fanatics and fanboys? Because without criticism, you can't solve issues.
Legitimate criticisms? I disagree. It looks more like you were an early adopter that was spoiled because he was able to easily append the block chain simply because there was no competition at the time (Bitcoin was still untested and unknown) and security came from the block subsidies (which don't last forever you know). As soon as there is some healthy competition for confirmations, the spoiled brats cry and moan and pull a whiny heam-quit. The block chain requires real resources to maintain and secure. Without it, Bitcoin doesn't exist. Yet, you want your free, instant transactions? I guess you want them to remain censorship-proof as well? Well, guess what, real life comes with trade-offs. Security and convenience are typically at opposite ends of the scale. Move further towards one, and you get further away from the other. We can't have a block subsidy that halves every 4 years, free transactions, and a secure block chain all at the same time! So, it sounds like you are asking for permanent inflation, or an insecure block chain. No thanks! We must transition from block subsides to transaction fees in order for Bitcoin to continue to exist. It's that simple. I promise that there are plenty of people in the world willing to pay well (and wait) for censorship-proof transactions, so all you fast, free confirmation lovers out there had better wake up and smell the reality. - To the person reading this thread who thinks they might also make a "Farewell Bitcoin" post in the near future... Don't. You aren't that important. Mike Heam wasn't that important and he did far more than you. |
|
|
|
I'm guessing he was referring to the EB parameter - Excessive Block - which is the limit at which your BU node will provisionally (i.e., up to the AD - Acceptance Depth) accept as a provisionally admissible blockchain tip. For reasons (heh), BU defaults that parameter to 16MB. However, it is just a GUI setting to change it. I have mine set to 2MB. Dunno, he just said "permits". I understand that concern. However, I think we will never again see an era of miners accepting zero-fee transactions as they have done in the past. Bear in mind that each additional byte that a miner includes in a block is a real cost to that miner, in the form of a larger probability of his block (if indeed that miner solves that round) being orphaned. Bigger block, more likely to be orphaned. This is where some of us believe the proper market forces should operate to set block size - not some central planning edict from the devs. It's certainly an optimistic view. I haven't mined in a while (never trusted pre-pay ASIC vendors), but when I did, miners were mostly morons who would happily pay a pool a fee in order to avoid variance while they could mine on a smaller, lower fee (or even no fee) pool and earn more. Maybe they've wised up since you actually have to shell out semi-serious money to be a miner these days. Wasn't it just recently (a year or so) when some large pool was having it's blocks orphaned from some SPV related mining method? Anyway, I'd assume miners to act in their rational self-interests, so there is that. I would also argue that choosing to run software which limits the block size to 1 MB is not "central planning", but proper market forces choosing that parameter much in the same way they agree to the 21 million coin limit. I understand that too. Indeed, all things being equal, more nodes is better than less nodes. Couple of points to consider:
- BU does not necessarily lead to larger blocks. I believe it likely will, but it may not. What it does is make it easy for each user to signal his preferences and set his limits. Inasmuch as Bitcoin operates _at_all_ because it harnesses the interests of its participants to 'do right', we believe the participants are the correct parties to determine the maxblocksize. I'm fairly certain that BU would lead to larger blocks. It seems to be the primary reason for it's existence. As far as participants choosing the maxblocksize, ultimately they will, but with the only metric that matters, their wallet. - The SegWit Omnibus Changeset allows 4MB blocks as well. Perhaps you do not support The SegWit Omnibus Changeset either, but it does bear mentioning. 4 MB seems huge to me and it might be a strong reason why SegWit isn't gaining acceptance as fast as it otherwise might. - In the meantime, Bitcoin -- at 1MB blocks -- is hard-capped at ~250,000 transactions per day. Period. The consequences of this could rationally be argued to be constraining new entrants into the system. (Indeed, I would say it is obvious that it does, but grant that others may have a differing opinion.) The pool of node operators is a self-selected subset of Bitcoiners. If we prevent new Bitcoiners from entering the system, the potential population from which node operators are selected cannot grow. Many of us think it likely that some percentage of new entrants will start up nodes. So increasing block size may actually result in more operational full nodes. When I read a new thread about "slow confirmation" or "expensive transaction fees", I see most people complaining about the inability to send low value transactions, with tiny fees, and have them confirm rapidly. If these are the kind of "new" users we hope to acquire by increasing the block size, I have my doubts that many of them would be interested in the extra expenses incurred from running a full node (especially if the bandwidth requirements are further increased). Maybe I'm wrong. I run a full node because I am extremely interested in the freedom Bitcoin can provide and I want to do my part to support the health of the network. Censorship-proof transactions along with a seize-proof store of value is immensely important in today's world of ever increasing capital controls, not to mention the escalating war on cash. I don't transact with Bitcoin that often. I certainly don't think that "buying a coffee at Starbucks" is a brilliant use case for Bitcoin. I say it all the time, but it bears repeating: Every transaction does not need to be censorship-proof in a world where censorship-proof transactions exist. The people complaining about confirmation time or fees seem to want to use Bitcoin for common, everyday purchases and that just doesn't make any sense to me. Bitcoin is far too powerful a tool for our mundane, daily purchases, especially considering the real resources that are required for block chain upkeep and maintenance. Who is more interested in the basically altruistic act of running a full node, the guy who wants unfettered transfer of value between individuals, or the guy paying for his carrots at the grocery store? Maybe you are right and some of those new people will become fanatics like me, but I just don't see it. I'm not arguing that we should artificially limit the transaction capacity of Bitcoin. I just think we should increase it intelligently, in a way that doesn't just cram more data into the permanent ledger which every full node must keep a copy of forever. Perhaps the reason an increase hasn't happened already is because there is no good solution yet. |
|
|
|
At some point last year (maybe 2 years ago) my node was saturating my upload to the point where normal web browsing would not function smoothly. I had to reduce max connections (to around 20) in order to continue supporting the network. I guess a gimped node is better than none at all. I'm not sure your concept of "gimped" makes any sense. 20 inbound connections is enough to broadcast to the entire network and then some in 3 hops. Why is it "gimped" to not completely saturate your uplink 24/7 without any QoS measures in place? There are people who want historical block chain data. My node is either available to provide it to them or it isn't. I'm either doing more to strengthen the network or doing less to strengthen the network. It may not seem important when there are thousands of other nodes capable of doing the job... but that's kind of my point. |
|
|
|
Perhaps. For the last several years, however, I've hardly noticed the presence. Typically fully opened, sometimes outbound only, sometimes running multiple nodes (production, development, test, core, classic, xt, bu)- not an issue. If it ever gets to be a strain, I'll throttle back from fully promiscuous (at the moment, I have 63 inbound connections) to something lower. I've had a different experience, possibly because I've been running a full node non-stop since 2011 (maybe more nodes have mine in their peers list)? At some point last year (maybe 2 years ago) my node was saturating my upload to the point where normal web browsing would not function smoothly. I had to reduce max connections (to around 20) in order to continue supporting the network. I guess a gimped node is better than none at all. Eventually, I upgraded my internet from top tier cable to top tier fiber. Now I'm back to non-gimped mode. I have the best possible home internet available in my area, and it's not cheap. Yet, this is all with the 1 MB limit in place. Just recently, in a different thread, PeterR pointed out that he had his BU node set to accept 16 MB blocks today! I'm of the opinion that if you build it, they will come, meaning it will not take long for those blocks to be full of no-fee-paying transactions, for whatever purpose someone happens to come up with. If that would be the case, there is no way my home internet could possibly do much more than a few connections at a time. I, personally, believe this would lead to a lot of people to refuse incoming connections entirely. If a Bitcoin fanatic like myself can't afford to run a full (non-gimped) node, well there will probably be a steep drop in available nodes. I don't think this is the direction we want to be going at this point in the experiment. We have r0ach telling us that governments are going to co-opt Bitcoin, and while I argue that Bitcoin will be able to survive such attempts, if we start eroding decentralization of the network from inside, he could be right. I'm not arrogant enough to think that I'm 100% correct and big blockers are 100% wrong. I always say that I simply prefer to err on the side of decentralization. It's obvious to me that increasing the traffic required to keep the network running does harm decentralization to some degree. On a side note, I typically have over 100 connections, and I ban anything that isn't Core .12 or newer. Meaning, I'm feeding lots of block chain data to full nodes as opposed to whatever the countless bitcoinj connections are asking for. IOW: I can keep it up longer than you can hold your breath. Certainly long enough to resolve the current scaling solution impasse, AAR. You mean the impasse that is 3-4 years old now? Heh, a lot can happen in that amount of time. |
|
|
|
I opened up my node to inbound connections last week.
A few months of uploading 500-1000+ GB per month might start to convince you that drastically increasing the amount of data required to keep the network running might not be such a great idea. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin does not function if made illegal. Debatable. First off, the network traffic is not obfuscated. Easily changed. Second, the mining pools are too huge of an attack vector. The mining landscape has grown as it would in a world where Bitcoin is legal. If Bitcoin becomes illegal, it will obviously adapt. It can function just fine without large warehouses full of hardware. (Actually, it would be better off.) Third, it's usage would be barter only in the black market. If things get as bad as you are suggesting, EVERYTHING will be on the black market. Unless bitcoin captured every transaction from the entire drug market on earth it's market cap would be tiny. Entirely possible. So basically a small market cap with an insecure chain. If you outlaw gold it does not incur a penalty on gold's security; it does for bitcoin. As for mining the actual coins, it would be even less decentralized than it is now, or maybe entirely controlled by one single guy.
You can't mine it with commodity hardware so all mining would be controlled by some shady guy in the backstreets of Shanghai. It would be like having to visit the Mogwai dealer in gremlins in order to mine. In fact, it's already basically like that in the first place.
You sound like old Anonymint with this "government is going to take over / prevent Bitcoin" nonsense. It was silly back then, and it's just as silly today. If the government tries to crack down, Bitcoin simply adapts and evolves into something else. Good luck doing that with your shiny rocks! |
|
|
|
Then why has no one been caught for all these high profile thefts / hacks?
Why would they be? Mixers and things like monero (just a built in mixer on-chain) aren't illegal...yet. There will come a time when using a mixer will be a conviction for laundering by default and all transactions will be to and from fixed address alias systems. Everything outside of that will be considered criminal. You act like a government outlawing something prevents it from happening. You are smarter than that... I fully expect Bitcoin to be illegal in most places some day. But that will probably actually increase usage... To quote a famous princess: "The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers." |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
