Bitcoin Forum
July 22, 2017, 02:38:50 AM *
News: Are you prepared for Aug 1 / BIP148?
  Home Help Search Donate Login Register  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 [25] 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 ... 239 »
481  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Estranged Core Developer Gavin Andresen Finally Makes Sensible 2MB BIP Proposal! on: January 29, 2016, 01:55:18 AM
not so against any kind of increase in the max block size
The Bitcoin Core capacity roadmap includes several block size increases, including the immediate term segwit proposal that many people are actively working on (and which has a testnet)-- which increases the capacity to fairly close to Gavin's latest proposal (which is not BIP 102).
482  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Wondering out loud: Which should Chinese miners support - Core, Classic or another? on: January 28, 2016, 11:38:45 AM
That is why miners should be depending on full nodes for their relaying
needs, so it will be the nodes whose mempools matter.
That isn't how the system works, and it's not possible to make it work that way.

You can implement whatever rules you want; but miners don't care, they'll receive transactions around you. Even if every other node implemented some mempool policy; miners can just set up their own and people would send transactions directly to it.

Which leads to a question, why isn't Corallo's fast relay protocol in Bitcoin Core?
Because it has been under constant, rapid development. It's also only of limited interest to non-miners. I recommend adding it to contrib a while back, but the pace of development precluded it. Perhaps now that it's pretty mature he'll change his mind.
483  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Wondering out loud: Which should Chinese miners support - Core, Classic or another? on: January 28, 2016, 11:21:47 AM
there is a balance (or conflict) of power

Yes, but it does not play out equally in all respects: When it comes to mempool policy, miners have almost absolute power; no one else has almost any influence except via highly inefficient mechanisms like selling our coins and adopting a new cryptocurrency or hardforking the POW to fire the set of miners. The remedies are so costly that non-miners are basically deprived a voice, at least in any strong sense, on things related to mempool policy.  Even a single moderate size miner has huge influence on mempool policy behavior, the action of a majority of miners isn't required.

When it comes to hardforking system rules, this balance is reversed. For those, a miner's opinion has almost no weight. A miner can only impose opinion there by stopping mining (if a miner produces a rule violating block, it's ignored as if it never happened). For that the users matter; and hopefully the users are prudent enough to understand that if they collectively act to harm a minority of users, they undermine the value argument for the system (... after all, why not you next?). (And perhaps developers matter a little there, since you need at least some people who are willing and able to develop to write the rules and maintain the system).

And this is all part of the intentional balance of power in the system. In an ideal world, Bitcoin would have no miners-- no even slight point of trust at all, just a purely flat p2p system. This isn't possible in the real world, so Bitcoin uses miners to determine the ordering of transactions but carefully confines them to control only the ordering; which is already very powerful-- it's what creates that near absolute control over mempool policy. That this point of trust is tightly confined.

Of course, many people wear multiple hats:  I am own Bitcoins, I develop the Bitcoin protocol and applications, I mine Bitcoin, I help run a Bitcoin related business, I advocate Bitcoin to others, and I also use Bitcoin casually.-- and some authority someone lacks under one hat they may have under another.
484  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Wondering out loud: Which should Chinese miners support - Core, Classic or another? on: January 28, 2016, 10:53:34 AM
In terms of revenue, you've mentioned private side chains, I assume either by subscription or fee? Some would infer that a somewhat expensive and crowded main chain environment might incubate such services, for transactions generally, not just those seeking confidentiality. Why are they wrong?

Gregory, I'm not trying to diminish the work you've done, which is much more than I will ever do. Some people just have some questions, and I sincerely appreciate your responses.
And by support and development contract.  Private sidechains can offer functionality that a global decentralized system cannot directly for fundamental reasons-- e.g. instantaneous transactions, not just thing they don't offer yet (like CT or smarter smart contracts); they're just a different trade-off.  

Regardless of what you think of crowding-- an increase in the blocksize does not guarantee its avoidance, as miners are free to impose further restrictions; and a single person with a while loop could produce unbounded amounts of 'load'. Even if I don't expect them to do so, or at least not often, they can and that's always a risk at any (plausible) size.

The kinds of block size increase that even people aggressively in factor of block size increases believe might be viable in the Bitcoin network are fairly modest, e.g. classic and "2 MB", which, as mentioned is pretty close to the proposed segwit capacity.  By contrast, a private system used between businesses, could run arbitrarily large assuming all its participants were willing and able to invest in the cluster computers and expensive bandwidth required at _every_ node. Oh the benefits of not being a permission-less decentralized system.  The space of possible systems which don't require the other benefits of a private system, don't require the benefits of a decentralized public system, and would not work in bitcoin now but would with the kind of realistically small blocksize increase, and would choose to do so.. is pretty narrow-- and isn't something that we've ever considered in business discussions.  More philosophically, the bitcoin blockchain is a precious global shared public resource with huge externalized costs that fall to all future users; it's good stewardship to not cram things that don't need to be in it, into it regardless of what the limits are.

For added color: I've never heard a prospective customer say something like "X TPS won't work but 8*x TPS will work"; they do say things like "X TPS works now, but we might need 100000*X TPS on short notice, can we have that with absolute confidence if we're willing to pour money at it?"  And that latter question can never be true when your only mechanism is dumping all your data into a in a worldwide _shared_ decentralized flooding system run by third parties whos costs you don't pay. So if then also we also avoid huge businesses setting themselves up for failure with the expectation of the 100000 fold increase peak loads that the system couldn't possibly take without a decentralization killing blocksize-bailout, I think that is good too.

But also, hold up a minute. I think we're both playing along with Mike Hearn's claim that it's all _me_ saying, or the techies (or blockstream) alone, saying that HF's are dangerous in principle  and/or that block-size matters. It's not (go check out those bitcoinocracy links-- or Jon Matonis, for an example)... and it's also not our choice (except as people who own Bitcoin, and in our individual capacity to decide what efforts we'll volunteer time on). I get targeted because I've stepped up and drawn fire so that other people can get some work done.

I'm sorry for taking things so off-topic here. This is a tangent, and I wouldn't have gone down it. But people from Bitcoin Core who were on a phone call with some Chinese miners last week told me that some of these claims about Blockstream came up multiple times.  Even if it took a "happily biased" poster here to call them out, I think some people were thinking about them and I think it's better to have addressed them head on. I hope we can talk some about actual business needs in later posts.
485  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Wondering out loud: Which should Chinese miners support - Core, Classic or another? on: January 28, 2016, 10:29:21 AM
that is equivalent to saying that the user community is just plain stupid
I think that's a naive perspective. Consider, Peter_R was making news some time back circulating an academic style paper arguing that a fee market exists absent any blocksize limit. But his analysis depends deeply on there being continued inflation, and does not work without it.  If we drive the system into a state where the choice is to take a _bit_ of inflation or else suffer a debilitating loss of security the answer will be obvious, and it doesn't require anyone being stupid. Avoiding that kind of trap requires constant vigilance and foresight to avoid creating that trap in the first place.

This is doubly true given that many of the arguments are fully general: People argue that somehow without mechenisms in the system miners will collectively self-regulate and behave in a way that achieves a globally good outcome, absent security assumption breaking collusion or coercive force, even when it's in their individual best interest to defect; because they want Bitcoin to be valuable. This could just as well be applied to them controlling inflation; and people keep making it even though that kind of strongly trusting long term benevolence against short term interests already been disproved by finney attacks, withholding and dos attacks on pools by each other, voluntarily centralization in response to orphaning, and many other effects which the system survives precisely because it doesn't trust miners and is instead built out of rules that limit the amount of harm that mistakes or greed can cause, without requiring an external collusion which could easily be abused (including via violent threat) to censor transactions or perform other harmful acts.

I don't think users are stupid. I think governance is incredibly hard and that the development history of fiat currencies shows that mankind is ill-equip to create a strong and sound system via human governance-- not through lack of trying, but because mankind is fundamentally not cut out for it: there is always some excuse that makes people feel justified in compromising the property rights of some for the benefit of (potentially many) others. Bitcoin was specifically created and promoted to replace that kind of subjectivity with machines, but it can't do it if we go around undermining it.  ... Does that mean I think Bitcoin can never be hardforked? Absolutely not! Some kinds of hardforks would be completely uncontroversial; it's the ones that have earnest opposition from real owners of Bitcoin that such great care needs to be taken with.

[Also-- witness Bitcoin Classic arguing that it's proper to put the 21m cap up to a popular vote. I think that is reprehensible. A simple majority shouldn't just be able to vote to undermine the property rights of a minority, even if there a strongly fair global voting mechanism were possible.


Even if you don't buy my argument that the risk is real; the argument that Bitcoin could easily have its rules changed is FUD that our competition would ruthlessly exploit. After all, this is an earnest concern held by many of the longest term and most experienced among us... it would be an easy sell to someone looking for "the catch".

486  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Wondering out loud: Which should Chinese miners support - Core, Classic or another? on: January 28, 2016, 09:57:33 AM
How does Blockstream plan on ensuring an ROI for its investors? I understand there is some time-locked bitcoin involved... but this is a business, right?
Sure, discussed at some length in posts here:

If you look out there, there are major technical problems in using Bitcoin and applying Bitcoin-like technology to broader industry-- for an example that couldn't be included in the above write-up, though it's surprising to many the #1 cited complain is the lack of commercial privacy in Bitcoin: No one wants their competitors tracking their books, or their customers criticizing their margins. So, Adam Back and I went out and created confidential transactions; which specifically solved that (currently for private sidechains, but hopefully someday its successors will be available in Bitcoin proper).  Who else is going to do that kind of original powerful work?  If you don't see the business case for solving the hardest problems in this space, and or enabling the reach of Bitcoin more broadly, then you may be underestimating how powerful and world changing cryptocurrency can be. Fortunately, our investors aren't. And _ensuring_? There are no guarantees in investment.

But even ignoring all that... lets just assume for a moment that Blockstream is really malevolent, and that the protections we built into it (described on that Reddit thread) all failed. What then? We're just a part of Bitcoin Core; and the message I'm giving you is also held by the vast majority of the non-blockstream contributors. I applaud paranoia, but it wouldn't make sense to dismiss the work of the hardest working independent people in the space because of an unsubstantiated maybe about a generous contributor they have collaborated with. If you're going to go down that route, you'll find yourself jumping at every shadow. After all, blockstream could have been kept completely secret-- why would you assume someone really out to serve a private interest wouldn't do so.  It is, sadly, not unheard of for people working on Bitcoin to fail to disclose their affiliations. Ironic that some would attack those who disclose them without asking any questions of the rest.
487  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Wondering out loud: Which should Chinese miners support - Core, Classic or another? on: January 28, 2016, 09:09:48 AM
Hi Eric,

You might want to meditate some on this post:

Bitcoin was created to be a system of money that depended on cryptography and mathematical proof instead of strong trust; removing systemic political risk and providing monetary sovereignty to it users. Bitcoin is simple in implementation, but complex in implications-- it carefully balances economic incentives and clever algorithms. As typical for cryptosystems, the details matter greatly: Many people have failed to understand the careful balances in the system, and many an altcoin that twiddled with the parameters in seemingly innocuous ways found their system unworkable or insecure in practice.

Capacity is an important criteria for the Bitcoin system; but is one that is sometimes in competition with security, censorship resistance, and the other properties which are critical to Bitcoin having value compared to traditional financial instruments.  I believe that with care we can navigate these compromises and with intelligent technology we can reduce the conflict-- just as Bitcoin does. We must be humble about the emergent properties of a system which no person understands completely, and be careful to do no harm. There are many ways to achieve capacity, and the fine details of them matter greatly from an engineering perspective; but if implemented well-- are irrelevant to the end user.

Some people, like Mike Hearn and Gavin have pitched a future where Bitcoin runs exclusively out of large datacenters and its users are left depending on the trustworthiness of a small number of organizations scattered around the world. They've suggested a world where security is provided by unspecified mechanism or donations instead of fair market forces, or where proof of work only acted as a bootstrap.  I don't share that view, nor does Bitcoin Core in general: We don't believe the world sees or will see value in recreating a centralized payment processing network like Paypal, except with less efficient technology... I don't think Bitcoin's value as a trust-reduced personally autonomous global currency are just a sales pitch, I believe we can deliver on them now and into the future... and that if we give up on these values, even if we enjoy short term benefits like unlimited capacity, that kind of Bitcoin would fade away because it wasn't providing something the world needed that it didn't already have.

The seeds of achieving truly great capacity without compromising the differentiating values of Bitcoin, our removing our arguments for security without collusion in the long term were sewn in the very first versions of the software-- support for payment channels are just one example. Though this work is still maturing.

Bitcoin Core has adopted a capacity roadmap that increases the direct capacity some, while also applying risk mitigation in the forms of allowing new more secure lite client modes, improved relay performance, and other optimizations-- and does so in a way that is compatible and which doesn't require immediate cooperation from all the participants.  "Classic" (in quotes, because I believe the name is deceptive and insults all of our intelligence) proposes similar capacity but without the safe-guards, by a hard rewrite of the system's rules.

I think incredible care must be made when rewriting the rules like that: The rules _are_ Bitcoin. The stability of Bitcoin's rules _is_ the soundness of the currency. If the rules can be easily rewritten against the will of some users by others according to political whim then what can be trusted? Is the supply fixed? Will coins be confiscated and awarded to others? If that gate is crossed then there is almost always some excuses which is "good enough"-- as was lamented in some of Bitcoin's earliest announcements.  And these changes are controversial -- see, for example, the millions of dollars of Bitcoins backing opposition to things like BIP101 and supporting core over classic. I don't believe that Core has the power to make changes prohibited by the rules of the system while they are opposed by an economically significant portion of Bitcoin's users. If it does, by way of inertia or lazyness, have that power I don't believe it has the moral authority: to rewrite the system out from under people risks walking the thin line of theft.  And if the system could really be so easily rewritten against controversy: it may bring into question Bitcoin's ability to uphold any of its properties. This is a dangerous road that should be avoided whenever possible.

I certainly hope it doesn't come to that, and I believe it won't: With the planned improvements we can gain capacity without the controversy; and preserve harmony as the essay I initially linked to discusses. We should be able to satisfy all users and uses of the Bitcoin currency; and we must if we are to achieve the full potential of the system.

As far as classic itself goes. I must admit having a difficult time taking the question seriously.  The active technical minds in this space, dozens of people, almost unanimously agree with Core's approach.  Similar to XT, perhaps arguably worse off--, classic is not currently supported by a vibrant team of experienced and able parties. In spite of much posturing and language, they've failed to even deliver on the most basic software development work, and once they do I am doubtful that they'll be able to continue maintaining it. If this development is happening now, it doesn't appear to be in the open and subject to extensive peer review. This is no coincidence: most people who understand the technology deeply overwhelmingly agree with Core's approach. Perhaps it will get its act together in a way that XT didn't, but that hasn't happened yet. It's a little alarming to me to hear some reputable parties backing something with so little delivered substance, and I'm somewhat concerned that it's setting up the industry for further embarrassment (beyond the small amounts classic related embarrassment suffered so far), perhaps even worse than caused by XT and Mike Hearn.

I feel I shouldn't need to go into this-- But I know it's being said I feel I should confront it head on: Some of the advocates of Classic claim that Bitcoin Core is somehow controlled by my company, and that we somehow hope to profit from stifling Bitcoin. I believe they do this because it's a cheap attack, easily believed because most do not have the time or energy to follow the details of the activity in core-- similarly they draw an equivalence between the technical people who've signed on and those involved in the core project. To an insider these comparisons are laughable, but I am aware these claims have cause concern. Everyone at Blockstream has a significant financial interest in preserving Bitcoin's value (time locked bitcoins are part of our compensation, and most of us owned personally significant amounts of Bitcoins prior to blockstream). The fact is that my company was created by some of the most active developers of the Bitcoin system as a way to provide sustainable funding for that development-- something few to no companies in the industry were doing so; but even so it's just a rough half dozen voices out of dozens-- and you can happily talk to non-blockstream Bitcoin developers like Cory Fields, Wladimir, Alex Morcos, or Eric Lombrozo-- or outside-of-bitcoin technology experts like Bram Cohen (inventor of Bittorrent) or Nick Szabo-- and get much of the same message you're getting from me. The understanding that there is a fundamental capacity/security trade-off is not a new one though we're constantly learning new implications of all aspects of the system, scaling included. I think that the work we've done inside and outside Bitcoin speaks for itself, but if that's not enough-- talk to the other contributors and compare notes.  I don't know of a better way to answer the conspiracy theories than that.

I hope this has provided some useful food for thought-- but really, what I think is missing is your thoughts. What requirements do you feel aren't being met by Core that would leave you asking such a question? (I could guess, but communication is much better than guessing.)
488  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: "Bitcoin classic", brought up by literal crooks on: January 28, 2016, 06:36:11 AM
People who make bad judgements tend to make bad judgements in many areas. It doesn't have to be more diabolical than that.
489  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: "Bitcoin classic", brought up by literal crooks on: January 28, 2016, 05:58:06 AM
Classic has been losing reliability and credibility, as to my knowledge, the development has been quite stagnant
There may be more development in secret. Rather than having public activity on github they seem to have mostly done code dumps with their initial patches. It certainly seems more dead than even XT did.
490  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Why soft fork is a very bad idea and should be avoided at all costs on: January 28, 2016, 01:09:26 AM
I'm sorry you disagree with the primary process by which the Bitcoin system evolves which has been used since the very beginning.

Perhaps you should take this to the altcoin subforum. No one is going to buy into the suicide pact Hearn and you seem to wish for-- and even if they did, they can't enforce it: soft forks can't be prevented.
491  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Analysis and list of top big blocks shills (XT #REKT ignorers) on: January 27, 2016, 11:29:28 PM
You don't understand how Lightning works then; the transactions are on-chain, but the settlement is still only per block.

I've found that directing people to the description of transaction cut-through has helped open their eyes to the fact that transactions can use the blockchain without every one of them being stuffed into it.

Could you imagine a country designed by block maximalists? Every trade, agreement, and contract would have to be held before the highest court!

"How can business be possible with only 125 cases per year?  We must scale the court!"
492  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Part 3 – Much more on why clues suggest Peter Todd is probably Satoshi on: January 27, 2016, 12:24:26 PM
Doubt it.His view on block size debate is pretty different than
your own fevered imagination, you mean.

on this subject; the topic is boring. It doesn't matter who Bitcoin's creator is... the design of the system was intended to eliminate third party trust; give it some respect by respecting it's creator's desire for privacy.
493  Bitcoin / Technical Support / Re: Raspberry Pi 2 Node on: January 27, 2016, 10:55:10 AM
You would need a 128GB SD card now. The performance will be very poor, it's just on the margin of workable.  SD cards usually don't have good write endurance either.
494  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Why Peter Rs Fee Market Wont Work on: January 26, 2016, 04:29:11 AM
them utilising the methods Greg describes for sending blocks.
The greatest irony is that after that dozen back and forth set of emails where I was completely unable to communicate to Peter R the ability of miners to completely remove the communication delay from the time of mining, amid his irrelevant poetic waxing about information theory... He went on to submit a paper to Ledger describing the idea, without attribution... which incorporated most of the previous elements I'd already described in public-- save one main difference: it screwed up the design so that participants would take orphan risk for new transactions by only adding them to the pre-consensus by attempting to put them in a Bitcoin block.
Indeed you did inspire me to work on subchains,
A fact your work failed to disclose, along with the fact that nearly the totality of the design-- including soft confirmations and the effect on orphaning-- had already been described by me previously (e.g. and in many other places going back some time) and including painstaking explanation in direct correspondence with you. Considering the over the top incivility you've expressed towards me in the past-- As well as towards my company and the community maintained reference implementation of Bitcoin (consider your current message signature here: "The fall of Blockstream Core draws near."), as well as the vigor in which you disputed the ability of pre-consensus to eliminate size proportional orphaning, it's difficult to believe this was an honest omission.

I actually did cite you, Greg.  Here's a screen shot:

Certain investigators have argued that fees that result from orphaning risk do not contribute to network security. For example, Maxwell argued, "the fact that verifying and transmitting transactions has a cost isn't enough, because all the funds go to pay that cost and none to the POW 'artificial' cost."With a simple diagram, we prove this line of reasoning false
That isn't a citation for my work; it's a petty dispute of an unrelated criticism.

A citation for my work would have been something like "Maxwell proposed a general class of second-order consensus techniques for eliminating size-proportional orphaning risk and achieving fast estimation of confirmation[], in this paper we flesh out and formalize an instance of this approach, which we call subchains, and analyze its scaling properties and incentives."

Yet again it seems this is another case where I offer offer up novel inventions for true scalablity in the bitcoin system only to have them first claimed impossible and then, when their truth can no longer be denied, falsely attributed to other people who then turn around and argue that I don't understand or care about scalablity, puffing up a narrative that I do not attempt solutions to the concerns I raise.

Instead of providing even the most basic credit for my invention, you've accused me of being a "technician" and argue "it's become increasingly clear that [Greg Maxwell] actually has a fairly superficial understanding of large swaths of computer science, information theory, physics and mathematics"; perhaps to placate your conscience for ripping off my work wholesale? I'd find it funny that people who think my efforts are of such low value seem to be so eager to attach their own names to them; if not for the fact that the effort to falsely elevate your expertise above others is an activity with a risk of seriously negative consequences for the bitcoin ecosystem.
495  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Why Peter Rs Fee Market Wont Work on: January 26, 2016, 03:04:39 AM
Isn't there a little bit of 'chicken-and-egg' here?

Why would miners use these new 'efficient schemes'
in the first place if it was to render the fee market
ineffectual, unless they were already relying on something else
(blocksize limit) to do that (support a fee market)?
These schemes reduce orphaning and allow miners to make a greater profit.  It's not hypothetical, Matt's fast block relay protocol is the simplest and least effective of this class of scheme and it is used almost universally today to carry blocks between pools. (A good thing too: otherwise there likely would only be a single mining pool now...).

@Gmax I did some sleuthy reconnaissance for you here. Wink

And deploy a system for democratic governance that is better than ours.

About that:

But really, no one can 'neuter' bitcoin classic but themselves; and they've done that just well from day in most of the same ways as Bitcoin XT.
496  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Why Peter Rs Fee Market Wont Work on: January 26, 2016, 02:35:58 AM
them utilising the methods Greg describes for sending blocks.

The greatest irony is that after that dozen back and forth set of emails where I was completely unable to communicate to Peter R the ability of miners to completely remove the communication delay from the time of mining, amid his irrelevant poetic waxing about information theory... He went on to submit a paper to Ledger describing the idea, without attribution... which incorporated most of the previous elements I'd already described in public-- save one main difference: it screwed up the design so that participants would take orphan risk for new transactions by only adding them to the pre-consensus by attempting to put them in a Bitcoin block.

Of course, rational miners could easily overlay on top of it the more efficient scheme to commit to and pre-forward new transactions _before_ actually including them; so it's no great harm... the only real effect of this design flaw was that making it seemingly serves the desperate attempt at perpetuating some residue of the "natural fee market" myth.

We probably have spent too much time here thinking about these fancy schemes: The mechanism miners have historically used to mitigate orphaning is to centralize around larger pools. It's easy, has no startup cost, no development risks, and can be incrementally-- even accidentally-- deployed.

In my view these more efficient schemes are important not because they show that "natural fee market" fails the game theory test, but because they're useful tools to cut latency (thus progress) out of mining, and thus have a positive use for making mining more fair and less centralized. The fact that they also blow up any remaining claim that orphaning risk will act as a natural, if too limited to be at all effectual, control on block size is regrettable but unavoidable.
497  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Why Peter Rs Fee Market Wont Work on: January 25, 2016, 08:52:16 PM
p.13, from 2nd paragraph onwards. They're there.
Not so, according to Peter R himself:


Thank you for your response.  I think you bring up some interesting points that readers should be made aware of.  Transforming your concerns to the language of my paper, I think you're challenging the claim that "gamma" [the coding gain with which block solutions are transmitted] can not be infinite (cf. Section 7).  Indeed, if gamma is infinite then the analysis breaks down. 

I propose the following changes:

1.  I will make it more clear that the results of the paper hinge on the assumption that block solutions are propagated across channels, and that the quantity of pure information communicated per solution is proportional to the amount of information contained within the block. 

2.  I will add a note [unless you ask me not to] something to the effect of "Greg Maxwell challenges the claim that the coding gain cannot be infinite…" followed by a summary of the scenario you described.  I will reference "personal communication."  I will also run the note by you before I make the next revision public. 

3.  I will point out that if the coding gain can be made spectacularly high, that the propagation impedance in my model will become very small, and that although a fee market may strictly exist in the asymptotic sense, such a fee market may not be relevant (the phenomena in the paper would be negligible compared to the dynamics from some other effect). 

4. [UNRELATED] I also plan to address Dave Hudson's objections in my next revision (the "you don't orphan your own block" point). 

Lastly, thank you for the note about what might happen when fees > rewards.  I've have indeed been thinking about this.  I believe it is outside the scope of the present paper, although I am doing some work on the topic. (Perhaps I'll add a bit more discussion on this topic to the present paper to get the reader thinking in this direction).

Best regards,
498  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Why Peter Rs Fee Market Wont Work on: January 24, 2016, 06:07:18 PM
To me, it seems anything but negligible, and seems like common sense.  
The bigger block, the longer the time is required to process
it, and the greater the the risk of orphaning.
What am I missing here?

All the of expensive operations can be done before a block is found, then they do not add any proportional time.

Alternatively, miners can just consolidate to larger and larger pools-- which don't suffer any of those delays between themselves. Historically, this is how miners have responded to higher orphaning.

Alternatively alternatively, pools can just implicitly trust each other's work-- this is functionally equivalent to becoming a single larger pool for the purpose of this discussion.

Even ignoring all this, in the absence of subsidy orphaning risk doesn't produce a non-negligible minimum fee (in other words, this can't be an argument for fees providing Bitcoin's security in the long run). Even ignoring that, whatever 'implied limit' that falls out has no reason to be a blocksize which is workable for keeping non-mining full nodes on the network, so no check on the miner's behavior.

Amusingly, all of these were pointed out in peer review on Peter_R's paper, and he agreed to revise it to at least make the assumptions explicit... but then did not do so.
499  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Who Is At The Core Of Bitcoin? Lines Coded Per Developers. on: January 22, 2016, 08:08:20 PM
I see this will raise quite a bit of discussion... As said the results are not exact. But what I think it's missing from these kinds of data is statistics about BIP's and ideas raised, which would help to see the picture better (although this last factor isn't accountable for).
Peter todd probably suffers most in the difference to that. (And me too, if not for tests)
500  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT on: January 22, 2016, 07:47:06 PM
SOME interactions between new and old clients POSSIBLE
What are you saying isn't possible? Did you suddenly lose functionality when CLTV was released?

but will be left passing the parcel of unknown content
No they won't-- but even if they were, why would that be bad?

95% consensus
95% of what? and where are you getting that figure from?  The code in the Bitcoin classic repository doesn't appear to attempt to do that.

when 95% of people are happy
Oh, of people? How the heck do you intend to measure that?  ... if we could measure that we likely wouldn't need the blockchain.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 [25] 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 ... 239 »
Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!