in the end no matter what they, do, because they are basically doing the same thing, as long as the capacity is increae every solution is fine, but it should not add uselesses crap like xt
still i'm more curious about what will happen for the next increase, principally for core, because you can not use the magical "segwit" two times
some would argue you should not be using it (as a proxy for blocksize increase) 1 time  Why? Segwit is what scalability is about -- optimization, making throughput more efficient so that increased capacity doesn't mean increased load on the system. Why do you have to make it so political, implying that it is a "proxy" for anything? Segwit is the best of both worlds. Buying time is the idea here....with weak blocks and IBLT down the road, block size will be less of an issue as bandwidth pressures taper off. You guys act like bitcoin has no limitations. If we're achieving roughly the same capacity, what's the obsession with hard forking right now? What is the urgency -- particularly when most devs and much of the community doesn't support it? We should be concerned first and foremost with retaining bitcoin's decentralized and therefore censorship-free qualities. That means that increased capacity requires optimization (like Segwit), as bandwidth is the primary pressure on node operators....not simply bloating blocks as large as adoption will allow. There are a series of standard "anti-blocksize increase" arguments. They have all been answered. You're currently using the 'increased pressure on nodes leads to centralisation' argument, which always invites the standard 'segwit pushes the same if not more data than blockchain' response. Segwit works around the blocksize limit, it doesn't *not* increase resource utilisation in a like for like comparison. You said segwit 'buys time', implicit in that statement is an acknowledgement that something needs to be done. Hence I think you already know the answer to your own question "What's the Urgency?" |
|
|
|
for anyone that likes a laugh - (dunno if i like the graphs or the pie charts more)... http://xtnodes.com/That's mean picking on the little kids! |
|
|
|
What does 'being here long enough' have to do with anything? Following that logic we should probably just do what they guy who was here longest said, anyone else is just a manipulator and a saboteur. This length of time defining what your agenda is. Is it a sliding scale, or a black and white thing? Like if you have only been here 3 months are you 87% saboteur and 13% legit. Or is there a cutoff date, everyone after March 14th 2015 is a shill out to destroy bitcoin? This is the conclusion that you've just come to, on your own. I have never said such a thing nor assumed it. Nice to see what your subconscious is thinking about. One must learn to embrace the personal attacks though. I didn't *subconsciously* poke fun at the 'manipulator and saboteur' story, it was wholly intentional. Ridiculous hyperbole can't be responded to seriously, that would be feeding the trolls. I concluded nothing about your statement "Many of them have no idea what we've been through and haven't been here long enough. " You didn't say anything about what it actually means, so I ran with your inference asked a series of questions! If those questions upset you then I am very sorry. However, if you didn't even laugh a bit at the graph then I'm afraid you may have a terminal case of 'taking yourself too seriously'! OH GOD ANOTHER ATTACK SAVE US have at it. I am wearing a silly hat after all. |
|
|
|
I got no problem with bigger blocks, from the core devs! I got a problem with forks and shits from manipulators and saboteurs!
Most of the people who are in support of such power grabs in BTCT or reddit have done nothing to contribute to Bitcoin; they don't hold many coins (if any at all) nor do they have a technical background. I've said this before; a 75% consensus threshold is a contentious HF that does not benefit the network. It rather harms it for the sake of attaining something that we don't even need yet. ''Future'' might be in 5 or more years!
As a miner i'm waiting for halving and the rising of transactions cost. Back in the ~2013 cost of transaction was .01btc
Many of them have no idea what we've been through and haven't been here long enough. They guy from April 2013 tells the guy from August 2014 that he can tell that there is manipulation and sabotage, he can tell from some of the pixels and having seen a few sabotages in his time! What does 'being here long enough' have to do with anything? Following that logic we should probably just do what they guy who was here longest said, anyone else is just a manipulator and a saboteur. This length of time defining what your agenda is. Is it a sliding scale, or a black and white thing? Like if you have only been here 3 months are you 87% saboteur and 13% legit. Or is there a cutoff date, everyone after March 14th 2015 is a shill out to destroy bitcoin? No, I think I have it! Maybe its more like the Ballmer peak:  |
|
|
|
51% is explicitly defined as consensus
Where is 51% defined as consensus? The whitepaper? Cite please! No figures needed - voting with their feet is just simple majority - 51% You could say it is implicit.OK boys, you two have fun getting your story straight. And I expect it to be explicitly logically and linguistically consistent, not the hand-waving implicit wink-wink-nudge-nudge version. He used the right word, I used the wrong one. Majority means 'the greater number', to me its pretty explicit, but I'll accept that it is implicit if it makes you happy. It's explicit to me that your only rebuttal to claims that (in summary) "51% is a majority, this is consensus, it is implicit/explicit" is pedanticism over the linguistics. Unless you want to argue about what the word majority means then we can agree that the definition amounts to 'the greater number'. So if it was 3 vs 1 that would be a majority. If it was 1000 vs 999 that would also be a majority. The 51% figure has been commonly used recently to express hashrate majority, but it is probably more accurate to state >50%. Take a look at the closing sentence in section 12 of the white paper. " Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism." The phrase " this consensus mechanism" refers to the immediately prior descriptions of the mechanisms that detail how the majority of CPU power will prevail by working on the chain they think is valid. If >50% accept and work on blocks that follow particular rules then inevitably leads to that blockchain becoming longer over time. The longest chain is the valid chain (as per the line in the abstract which states: " The longest chain not only serves as proof of the sequence of events witnessed, but proof that it came from the largest pool of CPU power.") So the white paper explicitly states that consensus is achieved through a majority of CPU power. It is implicit that majority is >50%. This is all logically and linguistically consistent (subject to Skitt's law!). This OTOH is your opinion: PS Nobody else believes your preposterous "51% = consensus" falsehood.
|
|
|
|
OK sgbett, are you ready to concede XT lost?
Or are integrity, grace, honor, and good sportsmanship not among the values prioritized in your culture?
Why are you so obsessed with XT winning or losing. Pinned your self worth on being right OTI? lol I am more than happy to say that right now it doesn't look like XT is being used by any miners. You knew that though. If that means XT has "lost". Then it has lost. BTW your 1MB rhetoric isn't aligned with MP anymore. Sorry to kill the romance That convoluted rant must be the most bitter, least graceful concession speech in Nixon in '62.  Drama level at 11, patronizing and obnoxious, with plenty of deflection... business as usual I see. Why is it like pulling teeth to get you to admit what has been for months entirely obvious? Oh well, at least you managed to recover some semblance of integrity as you sulk in your self-made bed of poor sportsmanship. I'd hoped you would learn something from the experience, as I would have if XT had similarly demolished my expectations. Unfortunately you're not the teachable type, so instructive object lessons like the XT debacle do nothing to further your education.  Even that silly old troll smoothie manned up and voluntarily took full responsibility for being on the wrong side of history vis-à-vis XT and Core. To his credit, I didn't have to shame and hound him into verbalizing an admission of defeat and falling prey to an inferior (albeit trendy) social movement. What is your major malfunction? Did your parents fail to properly educate you in matters of comity? The gracious victor should always be sure to heckle the sore loser. Its proper form! |
|
|
|
There is nothing we desire more than to see FakeXT+RealXT "put the [alleged] hashing power over the top." Doing so creates a moment of maximized risk for first defectors, while (not merely coincidentally) maximizing opportunity/leverage for those shorting GavinCoins. If NotXT had a slogan, it would be "resolution via escalation."  Don't blame NotXT ('just doing its job') for being the messenger. As basil00 (the PseudoNode guy) said: Drama level at 11, patronising and obnoxious, with an out of context quote to co-opt another... business as usual I see. That comment cuts both ways. It means your pseudo nodes are useless. 750/1000 of the last blocks mined are needed for >1MB blocks. Pseudo nodes aren't mining blocks. So pumping the 'node count' does nothing except make miners more likely to switch for fear of being on the smaller chain. Solid plan TM. Bit it's ok your saviour won't let that happen I'm sure. All MP needs to do is get 25% of miners to run NotXT and for the other 25% to not run XT. That way you can prematurely trigger bigger block creation and then try and do a 51% attack. Solid plan TM. You can't even see yourself. Perhaps my charitable assumption, that you understand NotXT may be used to mine blocks, is incorrect? I hope not!  Sputter, flail, characterize, critique, and deflect all you like my friend. I take the sound of your howling objections to MP's long-standing Gavincoin Short stratagem (and subordinate NotXT decoys) as a minor victory-in-itself. I understand it makes you feel better (at least temporarily) to lambast my position, aligned as it is with Evil Mircea Popescu, in order to shore up the increasingly untenable tactics of Heam.
If XT wins, I will admit defeat. May we say the same of you, should XT be #rekt like Stannis at Winterfell?OK sgbett, are you ready to concede XT lost? Or are integrity, grace, honor, and good sportsmanship not among the values prioritized in your culture? Why are you so obsessed with XT winning or losing. Pinned your self worth on being right OTI? lol I am more than happy to say that right now it doesn't look like XT is being used by any miners. You knew that though. If that means XT has "lost". Then it has lost. BTW your 1MB rhetoric isn't aligned with MP anymore. Sorry to kill the romance |
|
|
|
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 in the white paper. I expect you have read it. |
|
|
|
Classic kool-aid. Veritas where is the majority that you keep talking about? Guys stop with this DIVIDE & CONQUER crap, bitcoiners should stay united.
That was the point of XT, BU and now Classic. I wonder if we are going to see more forks one this one fails. I wouldn't be so sure it's gonna fail this time. Past behavior of hardfork attemptives is not a secure way to predict future behavior. There are many factores and it could just be the right time for a fork now. You are confused about the timeline of and causality/inferential flow between the actual events. We spent months telling the Gavinistas XT would get #rekt like Stannis on the Blackwater, and that's exactly what happened. We correctly predicted the behavior of past hardfork attempts (ie their utter failure). These failures confirmed our predictive power. That analytical framework is still valid, thus we may safely predict future forks attempts will fail for (more or less) the same reasons past ones did. Your logic is 'floorless' (or rather, baseless)!  |
|
|
|
"0.71 is 2.8% of 25 which is what they get for mining block reward."
True. But my point was, that after block halving that is 5.6% so that may change the situation.
BTW, how long it takes to load and distribute to the miners the transactions?
Depends on block size, latency, bandwidth. Each miner can probably figure out their own statistics for their particular operation. Block halving may have an effect yes. Interestingly though, increasing block size probably doesn't. (More fees yes, but higher chance of orphaning...) that would probably not always hold true though. Fast forward several halvings. Unless something is really rotten in the state of bitcoin, the number of transactions will be significantly higher. Suddenly the 'mine an empty block through fear of orphaning' problem starts to go away. Fees outweigh coinbase. So although your chance of orphaning is higher its the same for everyone because everyone wants the fees and the block reward is secondary. |
|
|
|
If the majority of the community agrees that certain commits should not be followed, they won't. Kinda how Gavin and Mike dug their own holes.
Garzik is reportedly now using the same shovel as Gavin and Mike, as he attacks segwit for no good reason. I wonder what make him lose enough self-respect to put up with being bossed around by a bigoted, copyright-trolling shitlord like Olivier Janssens? You'd think Classic's (heavy-handed, top-down) steadfast commitment to 75% instead of the far more reasonable (and miner endorsed) 95% would clue Jeff in to the fact it's not a serious effort. But no.... If anything is far more reasonable than 75%, then the Satoshi 51% fork, dear Monero troll! Indeed. In fact, 51% is explicitly defined as consensus. (oh but argument to authority blah blah. yes, and anyone who actually groks why its 51% are baffled by people who argue it shouldn't be) Anything over and above that is just being kind. Any grace period of X from Y blocks is a courtesy. These measures are already *far more reasonable* than the actual consensus mechanism. Remember when organofcorti argued over some percentage point slippage, and everyone jumped on the fact it might activate with *oh the horror* only 68%. This is *still* more than consensus. It is still deferring power to the status quo. This can't be overstated. The myth that a supermajority is needed needs to be dispelled. The consensus mechanism was defined like it is to *exactly* deal with the situation where there is contention. Let hashrate decide. If some people want to try and undermine this by trying to trick miners into following different chains, let them do so now. Let them reveal their hand. Then we can see who is truly being 'irresponsible', and who is truly 'trying to destroy bitcoin'. The argument about fake nodes only works if those nodes are miners, they would have to partake in mining blocks until the 750/1000 trigger is hit. Then as soon is that happens, and a 1MB block is mined, they would reject it and immediately implicate themselves. In a trust centric system thats probably a bad business plan. |
|
|
|
0.71 is 2.8% of 25 which is what they get for mining block reward. There is a delay between knowing a block has been mined (that you can build on) and knowing which transactions were in that block. If you are able to find a block in that time, then you would have to be > 97.2% sure that you could hang around whilst you dump the transactions still in your mempool that were mined in the previous block, and fill up your just found block with the most profitable ones, before somebody else found a block. You have 100% chance of getting 25BTC - your EV is 25BTC You want a > 97.2% chance of not being beaten to get your EV over 25 Over thousands of blocks that could add up to a reasonable amount, but you would then have to weigh that against the cost of implementing something that figures out whether its worthwhile by calculating orphan rates, and the risks associated with that (variance/reliability). Or you could just throw out an empty block and take the 25BTC off the table. Knowing that the other 0.71 BTC are still on the table, and so you still have a chance to at getting them anyway by mining the next block (which you have a minor advantage to get as you solved the last block) |
|
|
|
|
If there ends up being two new alts born out of a contentious fork, you will have the same number of coins on both of them. Either wait until the dust settles, or try and make a quick buck selling one and buying the other.
Personally, I'd HODL.
|
|
|
|
in the end no matter what they, do, because they are basically doing the same thing, as long as the capacity is increae every solution is fine, but it should not add uselesses crap like xt
still i'm more curious about what will happen for the next increase, principally for core, because you can not use the magical "segwit" two times
some would argue you should not be using it (as a proxy for blocksize increase) 1 time |
|
|
|
The most senior devs already left the sinking core ship. More will follow.
The question is really not how many will leave. Its how many will stay and fight, and how much damage will they do. What damage can <25% of hashrate do? At this level my guess is that would just decrease the rhythm of diff increase for a few days or weeks, and later on everthing would go back to normal again. i'd agree, and given the 750 mined blocks courtesy period extended to those who haven't upgraded I think it would be in the best interest of any stubborn minority to accept the consensus view |
|
|
|
<snip>
And lol at "in your understanding". You don't even understand why raising the blocksize now is not a good idea
</snip>
One could very well say "You don't even understand why raising the blocksize now is a good idea" but that would presuppose I knew exactly what your understanding was. There are reasons why we shouldn't, there are reasons why we should. No-one knows for sure what the best scenario is, this is the perfect test of the consensus mechanism. |
|
|
|
The most senior devs already left the sinking core ship. More will follow.
The question is really not how many will leave. Its how many will stay and fight, and how much damage will they do. What damage can <25% of hashrate do? |
|
|
|
tell that to antpool and other idiot pool operators:
block: 396256
transactions: 1
relayed by AntPool
size of the block: 0.2kb!!!
The actual number of blocks that are full would be reduced and so would the size of the mempool if they weren't doing this. The Bitcoin network can handle more at 1 MB blocks, but it is the miners fault. A=> we don't need bigger blocks atm B=> why should i wipe my ass 10 times, if 5 times is enough  & go back to A! There seems to be an error in your declaration at line A! |
|
|
|
Then you don't understand how the actual fiat system works.
btw 25% =/= almost 1/3. It equals 1/4.
There was a mistake in my original statement and miscalculation. 25% of the initial network is more than 30% of the forked network. You're the one who doesn't understand the current system that we're living in. Stop trying to make Bitcoin a democracy. It should be trustless, not a battle between chains. Worse still 25% of the initial network is 100% of the other forked network! 100% of small blockers! This is patently unfair, the 100% not being allowed to* carry on mining small blocks. (*by not being allowed to, I mean "being allowed to but it's just not fair") |
|
|
|
I absolutely second that. What fundamental flaws?
Apparently he meant this article: I'm too tired to analyze all parts of the article. Let me just point 1 thing out: What I’m not for, however, is prematurely deprecating critical parts of bitcoin (zeroconf transactions and low transaction fees)
The author works under the premise that these transaction are fundamental parts of Bitcoin. The right description would be: "these are dangerous, and you shouldn't use them, because you will lose money, and people who know better will laugh at you".
I will get back to this, but even if these points are true they sure aren't 'fundamental flaws'. His views on 0-conf and fees are orthogonal to a discussion on LN. Address the issues around: - How it will avoid centralization when the only likely working model will be hub and spoke.?
- Why transact on main chain at all if payment channels can be settled (effectively) channel to channel?
- How are routes going to be found in real time unless they are for common/recurrent payments?
- How are routes going to persist? Or should they?
- How long will funds need to be tied up on main chain to support single/multiple channels?
I don't see they are fundamental flaws. They all end with a question mark for one thing which implies uncertainty. This is my understanding about some of those questions. LN is open source and there are financial motives to run a node. Bigger nodes might be better connected (=more profitable). There will be a degree of centralisation (like mining) I don't see LN being billed as a fix to centralisation? You transact (multiple times) off chain, net balances are settled on chain. Routing is explained in the paper and analogous to network routing, if routes don't exist then I expect missing hops will be set up on the fly. I *think* channels can be torn down instantly at which point funds are settled. I think a bigger concern is transacting off chain appears to be opaque until a transaction occurs on chain that nets out the respective balances. That is to say only the nodes that constitute a payment channel know about the transaction. Whereas with on chain then that transaction is immediately publicised and propagated to all nodes in public. The other thing I'm thinking about is that although individual LN transactions are trustless when conducted directly between Alice and Bob, as soon as Carl, Dave and Eddie get involved things change. Whilst the middle men here are financially motivated to do the right thing (and they can't steal - so perhaps trust is not the right word), you have to *rely* on these third parties, instead of a homogenous network of HA nodes. LN is definitely not inherently bad, provided people realise its a payment channel for bitcoin and not bitcoin itself. (Much like bank transfers vs cash). Which seems right to me... I'd use certainly use LN for buying coffee. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
