You know, there is NO solution on the table from ANYONE that results in a Bitcoin that is both scalable AND decentralized.
To handle the transaction volume of Visa would require every block to be 10-20 GB (Yes, GB, not MB). At that block-size, decentralization, which I consider to be a fundamental requirement of what we call Bitcoin, would be long gone.
I agree that we can increase the block size some as a stop-gap measure - but block-size increases alone will not save Bitcoin.
Hopefully, the upcoming conference will yield some fresh ideas.
Cryptomining, like any other specialized activity, benefits from economies of scale. This is unavoidable. You can minimize it, but you can't eliminate it unless you centralize some other aspect of the network, such as CODE DEVELOPMENT. The problem isn't technical. it's political. You have these little Napoleons who crowned themselves emperors in the name of protecting the revolution. A centralized Bitcoin will be just as dead as a slow Bitcoin. It very much IS a technical problem. My point is that it is already centralized. A big reason why we are still trading in the $200s is because it is centralized. The cost of putting mining decentralization ahead of scaling and capacity is that we have concentrated power in the hands of Core devs who make money routing around the very bottlenecks they created. If you're right, Bitcoin is already essentially dead. I think Bitcoin is working as intended at the moment, but we can agree to disagree, if you don't see it that way. |
|
|
|
You know, there is NO solution on the table from ANYONE that results in a Bitcoin that is both scalable AND decentralized.
To handle the transaction volume of Visa would require every block to be 10-20 GB (Yes, GB, not MB). At that block-size, decentralization, which I consider to be a fundamental requirement of what we call Bitcoin, would be long gone.
I agree that we can increase the block size some as a stop-gap measure - but block-size increases alone will not save Bitcoin.
Hopefully, the upcoming conference will yield some fresh ideas.
Cryptomining, like any other specialized activity, benefits from economies of scale. This is unavoidable. You can minimize it, but you can't eliminate it unless you centralize some other aspect of the network, such as CODE DEVELOPMENT. The problem isn't technical. it's political. You have these little Napoleons who crowned themselves emperors in the name of protecting the revolution. A centralized Bitcoin will be just as dead as a slow Bitcoin. It very much IS a technical problem. |
|
|
|
Adam, how the hell are we gonna take over 25% of global remittances at 7 transactions per second?
BIP100 then BIP200 and then... or maybe sidechains will help wtv man 25% of global remittances is baked in the cake 32,000$ is coming. Baked in? When and if the code the majority of the network runs is scalable, THEN I'll believe bitcoin is undervalued. BIP100 is the LEAST scalable of proposed upgrades and even it is a looooong way from implementation. You know, there is NO solution on the table from ANYONE that results in a Bitcoin that is both scalable AND decentralized. To handle the transaction volume of Visa would require every block to be 10-20 GB (Yes, GB, not MB). At that block-size, decentralization, which I consider to be a fundamental requirement of what we call Bitcoin, would be long gone. I agree that we can increase the block size some as a stop-gap measure - but block-size increases alone will not save Bitcoin. Hopefully, the upcoming conference will yield some fresh ideas. |
|
|
|
The longest proof of work chain is the consensus mechanism.
You keep spreading this falsehood. While it is not exactly wrong, it's not perfectly right either.
Not really. "the longest chain" is ambiguous. It should really be "the longest valid chain", and then you need to define which coin's concept of "validity" you're using. Every client follows the longest valid chain - that's precisely how they decide which chain to follow.
So assuming the question is "will my node follow the longest valid Bitcoin chain?", then the answer is "no" for XT once BIP101 is activated. At that point XT stops following the longest valid Bitcoin chain and starts following the longest valid XT chain, whereas the answer is "yes" for Bitcoin.
 It's my understanding that neither of these assertions is true in Bitcoin XT. XT changes the consensus mechanism significantly: Another less cited new feature of the XT client is a change to chain selection/consensus rules. XT clients don't follow the longest chain, they follow the chain with the highest XT checkpoint embedded into it.
Exactly what is a checkpoint and how is it embedded in the blockchain? How does the XT wallet decide which chain to embed a checkpoint into, and how does it decide what height to embed a checkpoint at? How does the XT wallet decide the frequency and time to embed checkpoints at? If I understand correctly, Bitcoin XT has not actually changed this yet - but will do so, if necessary, to 'work around' recalcitrant miners that don't mine the 'right' blocks. |
|
|
|
The longest proof of work chain is the consensus mechanism.
You keep spreading this falsehood. While it is not exactly wrong, it's not perfectly right either.
Not really. "the longest chain" is ambiguous. It should really be "the longest valid chain", and then you need to define which coin's concept of "validity" you're using. Every client follows the longest valid chain - that's precisely how they decide which chain to follow.
So assuming the question is "will my node follow the longest valid Bitcoin chain?", then the answer is "no" for XT once BIP101 is activated. At that point XT stops following the longest valid Bitcoin chain and starts following the longest valid XT chain, whereas the answer is "yes" for Bitcoin.
It's my understanding that neither of these assertions is true in Bitcoin XT. XT changes the consensus mechanism significantly: Another less cited new feature of the XT client is a change to chain selection/consensus rules. XT clients don't follow the longest chain, they follow the chain with the highest XT checkpoint embedded into it.
|
|
|
|
Does XT make Mike and Gavin dictators?Some people are portraying XT vs Core as “Dictatorship vs Meritocratic Consensus”. This isn’t right. Gavin and I can’t be ‘dictators’ because all we do is write software: if we go crazy, or do other things you disagree with, XT can be forked in exactly the same way as we did. https://medium.com/@octskyward/an-xt-faq-38e78aa32ff0 They also can't be dictators if no one is following them.  |
|
|
|
There should be more than one implementation of the bitcoin protocol.
Also, there might be legitimate use cases for "enterprise" style full nodes etc.
I could think of a thousand reasons why XT could be useful, but the most important ones will likely be the ones I can't imagine right now.
There are a lot of 'implementations' of the Bitcoin protocol. Just look at the debug.log from Bitcoin Core and you will see lots of different 'subver' strings that are, effectively, user-agent strings for different clients, many of which are not Bitcoin Core. |
|
|
|
Good point. Thanks for getting us back on track. I wish I knew which economist said something like "it's insanity to give power to those who pay no consequence for being wrong."
It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong.
Thomas Sowell
|
|
|
|
I'm not sure that block is really an XT block. It was mined by Slush pool, which is still creating all version 3 blocks. That particular block has a bizarre version field for some reason. It is an XT block. Sadly. Slush confirmed it, saying they allowing miners to choose and using v3 for core blocks and 536870919 for XT blocks. Version: 536870919(10) = 0x20000007 (hex) Edit: Sorry, someone on reddit said that, not Slush. https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3hhbm5/first_mined_xt_block_370434/Ok, I see now. Slush is allowing individual stratum miners to support XT by mining to a specific port (3301 instead of 3333), and XT does, indeed, use that rather odd number for the version. I stand corrected. https://www.facebook.com/MiningBitcoinCz?fref=nf |
|
|
|
I'm not sure that block is really an XT block. It was mined by Slush pool, which is still creating all version 3 blocks. That particular block has a bizarre version field for some reason. That's true. It could be a BIP 101 block... I don't really think it's either - the version in that block is "536870919", where the version field in a normal block (up to now) has been 1, 2, or 3. I don't think any of the current BIP proposals or XT client creates weird versions like that, do they? I would have expected maybe "4". I confess that I have not looked at the XT code to see what it puts in the version field, but I would not expect what appears to be a large random number. I think maybe the version field just got corrupted in that block somehow. |
|
|
|
I'm not sure that block is really an XT block. It was mined by Slush pool, which is still creating all version 3 blocks. That particular block has a bizarre version field for some reason. |
|
|
|
I think XT won't be happening given the market uncertainty it caused. Currently zero percent of the miner vote. http://xtnodes.com/Grab those those coins boys! So if i start mining on XT, will the blocks be easier to find? No. |
|
|
|
because bitcoin is being affected by what appears to be anti-gravity ... kinda like how ripple will likely stay languishing down low for the unforeseeable future cuz apparently gravity is holding them down. what do you do in win-win situations ?? you either float by anti-gravity or get held down by gravity .. its the laws of gravity ... where is wily coyote at ?? he knows about gravity ...
Just out of curiosity, are you the author of the book in your signature, or just advertising for it? |
|
|
|
WTF IS GOING ON?!?!?
There are 26k transactions in queue ... over 70MB mempool and the 3 largest pools are ignoring them entirely.
I hope all these get orphaned.
FUCK YOU CHINESE POOLS, fucking go rot in hell, thanks for ruining BTC along w/ ur spammy attacks.
Those 3 blocks were hashed almost at the same time. They are not empty deliberately. Basically, when a mining pool sees that a new block has been mined (by receiving the header) it gives all its client miners an empty block template - as a temporary measure - while the pool receives and validates the new block, and constructs a tx filled block template for its miners. This takes time. It takes more time when the mempool is full of spam and it has to filter through junk to get decent fee-paying tx. Sometimes a block is mined before the process of building a decent-sized block is complete. The Chinese pools all want to mine big blocks, including ones >1MB (but can't until something like BIP 100 or 101 goes live). +1 A very intelligent explanation, totally ignored by basically every subsequent response  |
|
|
|
Any ideas what the problem might be?
The problem is that Windows is an absolutely terrible OS...but it should work now. Yep, it works great now. Thanks! |
|
|
|
I am trying to upgrade to the latest client on github, but it is not working for me for reasons I don't understand. The old client still seems to work, but when I try to start the new one, I get this: relaynetworkclient.exe public.us-east.relay.mattcorallo.com 127.0.0.1 8333
Closing relay socket, failed to read message header (0: )
127.0.0.1 Disconnect: failed to read message header (No error)
127.0.0.1 Disconnect: failed to read message header (No error)
Closing relay socket, failed to read message header (0: )
127.0.0.1 Disconnect: failed to read message header (No error)
Closing relay socket, failed to read message header (0: )
127.0.0.1 Disconnect: failed to read message header (No error)
Closing relay socket, failed to read message header (0: ) Any ideas what the problem might be? |
|
|
|
Guys, I think TPTB_need_war's account got hacked.
By looking to his latest posts, he never shared his post like 5 times among the speculation sub-forum threads and he never were doomish like this.
He must've been hacked by Anonymint then. He's the only one that mentions Armstrong Economics in every post. |
|
|
|
i am root
i do not need sodo
Hmmm, ok, that begs the question of why you used sudo pacman -S uthash
but ok, I guess I misdiagnosed your problem then. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
