Bitcoin Forum
September 24, 2018, 02:53:40 PM *
News: ♦♦ New info! Bitcoin Core users absolutely must upgrade to previously-announced 0.16.3 [Torrent]. All Bitcoin users should temporarily trust confirmations slightly less. More info.
 
  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 76 77 78 79 ... 238 »
561  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Is it good or bad that Core development is virtually controlled by one company? on: February 05, 2016, 02:06:27 AM
You could say it is implicit.
Any other efforts you have to skew this are just spin.
You can say it's "implicit" -- but there are also many other lies you can tell.  The paper describes a mechanism where nodes verify and enforce the system's rules for themselves, using POW for ordering. It doesn't describe a system where nodes stop enforcing their rules if the are overpowered, nor is that how Bitcoin was written.

the most senior core devs such as Gavin and Jeff, reject the settlement system.

"The fundamental engineering truths diverge from that misty goal:
Bitcoin is a settlement system, by design." -- Jeff Garzik

Ahem.

And the claim that Jeff and Gavin are more senior is bunk. Unless you mean to say that someone whos first changes were merged a few days earlier, regardless of how much involvement they've had since is "more senior".
562  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Is it good or bad that Core development is virtually controlled by one company? on: February 04, 2016, 08:47:29 PM
transaction fee's do not need to be a revenue stream for atleast 2 decades
On one hand, you're saying that Bitcoin is fine even with the rewards being 64 times lower (that is what it is roughly 20 years from now.).. and yet you also think that 75% of the hashrate can force people into accepting rule changes.

563  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Estranged Core Developer Gavin Andresen Finally Makes Sensible 2MB BIP Proposal! on: February 04, 2016, 08:40:21 PM
It would be very impractical, expensive and inefficient to do that.
Why do you assume that, last I checked "datacoin" cost under 0.0005$/MB per data stored.

Quote
If people did choose to pay for that who are we to say that they should not. It is a permissionless network after all. Smiley
Because Bitcoin is digital cash, not a dumping ground for other applications. If the load or legal problems that come from use for other applications diminish Bitcoin's utility as digital cash then these activities are effectively stealing from all the people who own Bitcoins.
564  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: Bitcoin-Core connections in, advice for n00bs like me :) on: February 04, 2016, 12:07:31 PM
So if i've understood correctly there was no benefit for network at all from my node
Is there something you read that made you think this? If so we could go get it fixed.

As others pointed out, connections are bidirectional and you participate too even if you are only inbound.

But the _biggest_ benefit in running a node is having it protect your own transactions and traffic; that is where the decentralized security-- the rules that can't be violated no matter what, and ultimately what makes Bitcoin Bitcoin, come from. And that property is just as true even if you only have a single connection to the network.
565  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Is it good or bad that Core development is virtually controlled by one company? on: February 04, 2016, 11:45:18 AM
In one hand they are stopping block size increase citing lack of consensus, and in other hand they are force feeding RBF & SegWit without consensus.
Removing the rules against actions that the network protocol expressly forbids against the will of an economically significant portion of users, and risking a persistent ledger split in the process is not a comparable thing. It's something that Bitcoin Core strongly believe it does not have the moral or technical authority to do, and attempting to do so would be a failure to uphold the principles of the system. It's not something to do lightly, and people who think that it's okay to change the system's rules out from under users who own coins in it are not people that I'd want to be taking advice from-- that kind of thinking is counter to the entire Bitcoin value proposition.

The other things you're talking about are fully compatible updates which users can voluntarily choose to participate in or can choose to ignore. Users opt into applying them to their own transactions, and they shouldn't really be anyone elses business.  Neither of them are forces applied to third parties.

In the case of Opt-In RBF-- that is purely local node policy, not even a consensus rule. If even one miner wants to use it it could not be prevented even if all the other users and developers and all miners agreed that it was desirable to prevent. Worse, there are already miners out there doing full replacement without the signaling. Without the positive uses being able to opt in and voluntarily choose to use replacement, we will likely see more of that spread sooner. So you have something that causes no harm, potentially delays harm, and is fully optional being used to attack Bitcoin Core? I think that is really lame. Especially since replacement of non-final transactions was a feature in the _very first_ version of Bitcoin that was only turned off much later because as it was originally implemented it was a flooding vulnerability. In people's zest to politically manipulate others into disliking Bitcoin Core it seems that some have really lost the plot.

In fact, 51% is explicitly defined as consensus.
We all wait with abated breath while you go and cite that "explicit" definition for us.

It's nonsense in any case: When you're talking about the hard rules of the system-- the limits that make it valuable and tractable-- no amount of hashpower is enough to override it. Not 99.9%.  If a miner violates the hard rules of the system they are simply not miners anymore as far as all the nodes are concerned. This is an integral part of the checks and balances that create and preserve the incentives of the system: Miners can't just steal a bit on the side, their power is very strongly shifted to either participate honestly or DOS attack the whole thing (in which case the users would presumably change the proof of work), but not attack the system while continuing to have it usable.

But really, if any of you have an honest desire to continue a conversation-- go convince the OP to retract the wonky and non-factual claim. Otherwise this is all just a hall of mirrors.
566  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Is it good or bad that Core development is virtually controlled by one company? on: February 04, 2016, 11:19:27 AM
Everyone just has it out for Blockstream simply because they contribute to development [does that make sense to anyone?]... could be GCHQ (just kidding). Calling people who honestly disagree with you a sockpuppet campaign is a surefire strategy for success, not a sign of ego enabled self-delusion or anything.
That there is a sockpuppet campaign is an objective fact, and not up for debate. (see the hundreds of vigorous and dishonest attacks that inevitably are posted by single use throwaway accounts.)

Core development used to be literally controlled by one individual (at least entity ), first Satoshi Nakamoto and later Gavin Andresen. I think it may be more meaningful to ask another question: Is the interest of the Bitcoin economic majority well aligned with the interest of the company doing most of the protocol maintenance?
There was never a period when it was just Gavin working on Bitcoin; this is a common narrative people spin but it is incorrect.

I can't speak for everyone. But I own a lot of Bitcoin. Blockstream's compensation is setup to make sure everyone receives time locked bitcoins so that everyone at blockstream has an interest there too-- I am aware of no other company in the Bitcoin space that this can be said for... Not to mention that no question ever seems to be asked about incentives or funding sources for the people opposing.

Judging by the lack of coins showing up on the bitcoinocracy polls, the vigorously attacking groups may not be big investors in Bitcoin.

Quote
Even if there is no company, you can't rule out the possibility of most core devs suddenly go evil and conspire to destroy Bitcoin - They might have a better chance that way.
Indeed. Well more over, if someone were out to be evil they could just as well _not tell anyone_. I could _legally_ if not ethically be off working for EvilCorp and not tell a soul.  Based on what I've seen in this, people do a pretty poor job at asking probing questions. It's not the risks that you know about that are the most likely to cause harm, it's the ones you don't know about.
567  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Is it good or bad that Core development is virtually controlled by one company? on: February 04, 2016, 07:27:13 AM
Only 1 out of the 7 people who have commit access work for blockstream. gmaxwell used to but he voluntarily gave up his commit access for personal reasons.
Pedantically, it's 1 out of 5 now.   But yes, it just shows the dishonesty and the hippocracy of the attacks.  They claimed I was the problem. I _left_ and now it's still "blockstream controls bitcoin core". It's just going to be bullshit lies and threats until the end of time.

Quote
Furthermore, blockstream was founded by several developers who worked on Bitcoin Core before blockstream existed and those people have contributed greatly to Bitcoin Core. This isn't some company that was founded by a bunch of people who then hired Core devs to do their work, this is Core devs who wanted to do something and founded a company for it.
Part of the answer is that there are lot of people who do not want any work done improving Bitcoin.

There are people who do not want sidechains to exist; because it undermines their plans with altcoins and, especially, "spinoffs"... or want there to be drama in bitcoin so they can peddle their "hardfork upgrade to ethereum's design" as the grand solution.

There are people who do not want strong personal and commercial privacy to exist: They run services predicated on undermining the privacy of users or they own an interest in competing systems that bill privacy as their advantages.

There are people who don't care if Bitcoin is decentralized at all, but have raised millions on promises to store random third party data for practically no cost into the Bitcoin ledger.

And so on...

I don't believe there are many of each of these type; but there are some without scruples who don't mind faking it. And they're super busy spinning up lies like one of the only companies funding bitcoin tech development _at all_ somehow "controls" Bitcoin core because they employ one person that has commit access, or pay a half dozen people who have contributed out of several dozen while other companies pay no one to contribute.  And that is why we see that forums that are easily sockpuppeted like reddit are overrun with fabricated "increase blocksize at any cost" yelling, places like here less so.. and in person gatherings or [cryptographic measurements](http://bitcoinocracy.com/arguments/if-non-core-hard-fork-wins-major-holders-will-sell-btc-driving-price-into-the-ground) see far less.  

All this fabricated noise, right out of a GCHQ playbook (not that really think any state actors are involved)-- and it just may win: Because at the end of the day, the few with the courage to stop it gain nothing but the preservation of a dream of decentralized currency that changes the world; and too many others sit too quietly, hoping that others will take the heat. Dreams only go so far.

And some decades from now when your grandkids ask where were you when they took the shining hope of decentralized money away, more than a few people here will be able to tell them how they were fooled and fought to make it happen, or how simply stood idly by.
568  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Why Peter Rs Fee Market Wont Work on: February 02, 2016, 03:36:18 AM
And who erects the fences? Who wears the crown?
The same force that prevents you from spending my coins: the hardcoded rules that define the Bitcoin system, autonomously enforced by every user.

Rather than cap the blocksize, I would rather raise the minimum non-zero fee, to say 1 penny.
Either pay a penny, or don't.
Who decides what a bitcoin is worth?

Quote
Consider that 200tps would give you $172,800 a day in security under such a scheme.
What reason do you have to believe that 200 TPS is viable in a decentralized consensus system or will be in an interesting timeframe?

What happens if 200 TPS _is_ in fact viable, but at the limit of it... but the offered load at a 1ct fee is 40000 TPS? Do you expect the miner(s) to turn down an extra $34m/day in income to preserve decentralization?

Why do you believe $172k/day is adequate security?  That is only $1200/block.  If someone accepts a single confirm, then it would be pretty profitable (200% ev) to attempt a reorg attack against them if you have access to--say-- 10% of the hashpower and can make a vulnerable $12k transaction with them.
569  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Why Peter Rs Fee Market Wont Work on: February 01, 2016, 07:13:07 PM
Sounds like you are simply describing a tragedy of the commons.
Indeed, you can look at it like that. And one that can be avoided in the standard way: by not allowing unrestricted exploitation of the commons.

Even if there's no "orphaning risk" due to propagation because
of relays, etc... wouldn't miners still prefer to solve the
blocks with the biggest fees anyway?
Indeed, and absent a limit, flexcap, or forced collusion (or something no one has described yet), that is the one that involves taking pretty much all transactions that pay any fee at all.

Peter_R's argument was that a limit isn't needed to achieve this effect because orphaning will accomplish it, but we see now that he finally agrees that volume related orphaning pressures can be more or less completely sidestepped by miners:

schemes that completely eliminate block size dependent orphaning risks, it's easy to come up them.
And then he goes on to describe one of the schemes I emailed him.
570  Bitcoin / Alternative clients / Re: Safest bitcoin (not cold) wallet on: February 01, 2016, 12:21:03 PM
even using blockchain you'll be safe if you can sure your pc didnt infected with virus and you'd enable 2fa google auth
Or until they screw up their RNG again. Or until their website gets hijacked or XSS or until they get hacked...
571  Alternate cryptocurrencies / Altcoin Discussion / Re: COIN WARS: And the battle begins... on: February 01, 2016, 11:56:55 AM
2) Core/Blockstream supporters seem deadset on causing as much confusion and destruction as possible.  There have been comments in support of DDOS attacks on Classic Nodes.
Care to back up your defamation with hyperlinks?
572  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Why Peter Rs Fee Market Wont Work on: February 01, 2016, 05:51:50 AM
Anyways, if your fixated on schemes that completely eliminate block size dependent orphaning risks, it's easy to come up them.

If you're aware of this, why do you keep repeating as fact that it isn't possible? e.g.

In regards to your comment about using pre-consensus techniques to completely eliminating block-size dependent orphaning risk, you were wrong about that too, as I demonstrated in the subchain paper.

it's easy to come up them.I mentioned one early in the thread in response to Jonald (i.e., miners agree to mine a "practice" blockchain first such that the real blockchain is a verbatim copy [minus the blockheaders of course] but lagging by 1 hour).

By "easy to come up" you mean it's easy to copy them from the previously linked private email correspondence I had with you on this subject months ago? -- even including the time constant:

Quote from: Greg Maxwell
Miners volutarily participate in a fast consensus mechenism which
commits to transactions-- it could be a merged mined blockchain (like
the P2Pool chain, which commits to transactions) or something entirely
different.  No reward is given for participation in this scheme.  In
their Bitcoin blocks miners only include transactions which are at
least 6 blocks deep in that chain
, moreover they include all
transactions which are in it, in a determinstic order.

I am cannot fathom what you are thinking.
573  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Why Peter Rs Fee Market Wont Work on: February 01, 2016, 05:42:41 AM
I'm not suggesting that miners engage in a wild scheme that acts against their own self-interests.

I'm pointing out that they merely need click a box and lose orphaning risk from adding new transactions. Miners who do this will be more profitable, even if some did not-- they will be out competed by more profitable miners who do, end up operating at profit levels that are uninteresting and exit the system.

It is _locally_ more profitable for them to do so-- the scheme you describe is NOT an equilibrium. Any miner can add a commitment for what they'd like to include and do so at no cost. Any miner can use any existing commitments to decide to include transactions earlier. No coordination is needed-- beyond the one time act of someone writing the software, no orphaning cost taken to move out of that state.

Miners making local decisions that are somewhat adverse to the health of the network but profitable for themselves is not a hypothetical-- it's an observed effect. Without it we never would have had huge mining pools, to give one example. (arguably: we'd have no GPU or asic miners, either!)

Expecting miners to continue indefinitely to take considerable orphaning costs against their own self-interests in order to uphold some abstract 'good of the network' that comes from the 'virtue' of orphaning is isomorphic to expecting them to just pay a $1 sin tax for every transaction they include without any enforcement mechanism. They simply won't.  

Even if you assume the existence of some conspiracy to punish people who behave locally rationally-- and ignore the potentially devastating effects this would have on the other properties of the system--, these schemes can be arbitrarily undetectable... anyone who didn't like it couldn't even tell it was happening.
574  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Why Peter Rs Fee Market Wont Work on: February 01, 2016, 03:58:39 AM
In regards to your comment about using pre-consensus techniques to completely eliminating block-size dependent orphaning risk, you were wrong about that too, as I demonstrated in the subchain paper.
Your work is not a non-existence proof, it's an analysis of a specific scheme. You made the same error in reasoning in your prior orphaning work, where you erroneously concluded that orphaning was proportional to the size of the block-- this later work implicitly admits the error by saying it is proportional not to size but to the rate of additions, but does not go far enough.

You proposed a needlessly deficient design, one which was inferior to what I'd already described to you, due to having the flaw of increasing orphaning risk to add new transactions.

This flaw can be simply (and compatibility with your design!) corrected by miners: in your scheme miners add transactions by adding them to a block attempt, thus taking orphaning risk.  Instead, miners could add transactions by first adding then to a separate hash tree, committed to by the block whos data is only shared with weak blocks, not full block solutions.  Only when a transaction is well and buried in this second tree, do miners then add it to their blocks.  Avoiding the orphaning risk resulting from doing so.

Not only can miners do this this mitigate the orphaning from the new addition, but you cannot prevent them from doing so.
575  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Finally, Bitcoin Core = REKT on: January 31, 2016, 11:28:48 AM
which got basicaly monopolized by BlockStream and Bitcoin
Can you explain this for me?  Bitcoin Core is a project with dozens of people. One of the main developers of Bitcoin Core is a founder of Blockstream. And this is "monopolized"? Please, help me understand what you're thinking here.

Meanwhile, the developers of other implementations just don't bother to tell you about their business partnerships at all. Makes me sick.
576  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: What is a team and is what not a team. on: January 30, 2016, 06:16:41 AM
None of us have to take funding from anywhere in particular. Do you have any idea what experienced people in the domains we are knowledgeable in can get paid-- even entirely outside of the Bitcoin space?  Often more than attorneys.

Where we choose to work is a matter of optimizing our time and interests. We have the incredible fortune that none of us are forced to compromise our principles to put bread on the table.

It's true that the employment situation for many around the world isn't amazing, but right now (and for the last decade at least) any concern for systems programing, cryptography, network programing, security, etc. is misplaced.

I have spent two days unemployed, a weekend, in the last 21 years.
577  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: I "Think" that I found Satoshi Nakamoto on: January 30, 2016, 06:10:31 AM
paper submitted to International Association for Cryptography Research (IACR)
This paper is completely unrelated to bitcoin other than using the word's digital cash. It it is typical for contemporary digital cash papers.
578  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Estranged Core Developer Gavin Andresen Finally Makes Sensible 2MB BIP Proposal! on: January 30, 2016, 01:23:47 AM
So many critics! Hey, Gavin's trying to help!
So were the doctors who performed frontal lobotomies on unruly children.

The Bitcoin market price doesn't seem to think much of his help.
579  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Analysis and list of top big blocks shills (XT #REKT ignorers) on: January 29, 2016, 10:59:29 AM
The Toomininstas are confronting the same problem the Gavinistas did, which is that multiplying a tiny number such as 3tps by another tiny (ie sane) number such as 2 or 4 or even 8 still only produces another tiny number such as 6tps or 12tps or 24tps.

You can't get to Visa tps from here.  Our only realistic path to Visa is orthogonal scaling, where each tx does the maximum economic work possible.
Right, card payments are currently at around 5000 TPS on a _year round_ average basis, with highest day peaks probably at over 100k TPS. And that is now, these figures have been rapidly growing.

These are numbers high enough that just signature processing would completely crush even high end commercially available single systems.  Even if you took some really great drugs and believed plain-old-bitcoin could get anywhere near matching that in the near future while having any decentralization remaining.... so what? it wouldn't be close again after just a couple more years growth.

This sounds like a MBA school failure example: Ignoring your strengths and trying to match one on one with a competitor in an area where you're weakest and the slowest to improve and they're strongest and the fastest to improve.  Especially since considering payment networks as the primary competition for a _currency_ is a bit bizarre. Yet a payment network is all that some have wanted Bitcoin to be... I don't begrudge that, but the weirdness of the goal doesn't relieve it from having to have a logically consistent roadmap, or permit it to take down the whole currency in its failure.

A trip to the moon requires a rocket with multiple stages or otherwise the rocket equation will eat your lunch... packing everyone in clown-car style into a trebuchet and hoping for success is right out.
580  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Estranged Core Developer Gavin Andresen Finally Makes Sensible 2MB BIP Proposal! on: January 29, 2016, 06:37:49 AM
Just some spit-balling here, I'm sure I have some ordering and details wrong.


Mike and Gavin argue for no limits and ~free transactions forever, regardless of the costs.

Some in core suggest that if we really need to show the flexibility of a blocksize increase, 2MB could probably be sold and made safe enough (with planned future improvements) if we really had to.

Gavin gets some clue and realizes no limit at all makes no sense; Mike grudgingly agrees to go along with a 20MB proposal.

Miners reject that as unrealistically large.

Gavin and Mike retrench with a 8MB that rapidly ramps to gigabytes. Announce intent to adversarial fork the network in Bitcoin XT. A new client which is 99.99% code from Core but with the addition of the new expanded blocksize and Mike hearn declared benevolent dictator of the project.

In spite of announced intentions by some, almost no one adopts Bitcoin XT and XT development sits at a near standstill compared to Core.

Miners' notice the 8MB change isn't really 8MB and some aren't pleased.

Systems testing is finally performed on XT via testnet a month before it was intended to activate. Many performance problems are found with 8MB, person testing it suggests that 4MB or 3MB initially may be more realistic.

Core completes a years long development work which speeds signature validation >5x, invents a clean way to allow new efficiencies and security trade-offs, gets node pruning working, and comes up with a way to get roughly 2MB worth of capacity without a the risky and coordination problematic hardfork, while simultaneously fixing some long time bugs like malleability and misaligned incentives (utxo bloat).

Core posts a capacity roadmap including these solutions, along with a plan for further development to allow more capacity into the future.

Almost the entire development community and many in industry sign on an open letter in support of this plan. On the order of fifty people in all, it includes all of the most active contributors to Bitcoin Core and many other pieces of Bitcoin software.

Gavin, Jeff, and a few other people (including people involved with the recently insolvent Crypsy exchange) announce that they're creating "Bitcoin Classic"; a retry of the XT approach but with added popular voting on a centralized web voting site.

Mike Hearn catches fire, slams Bitcoin with a one-sided attack piece piece in the NYT calling Bitcoin a failure. Some argue that Mike's position is driven by his employment at R3, an adversarial to Bitcoin company working with major banks. Astute followers know this isn't true: Mike's misalignment with Bitcoin has existed forever.

Bitcoin market price crashes significantly.

Core creates a public test network for the new improvements and many people are actively testing on it. Several wallets begin their integration process for the new improvements. Development moves rapidly, several standards documents are written.

Market price substantially recovers.

Gavin finally announces code for the new "Classic", largely duplicating the XT functionality. Instead of the BIP101 rapid growth scheme, it features a 2MB hardfork, and none of the other improvements that are recently in core and in the works.

Bitcoin market price drops significantly again.

I'm hoping we get to the point where the market realizes it's being toyed with here and repeated XT reloaded attempts are pretty meaningless. We're not seemingly there yet.

Have I basically summarized the last year? Anyone want to add any bullets?
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 76 77 78 79 ... 238 »
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!