So, if your next question is "How can I increase the 8 outbound connections to a higher limit?" They are hard-coded in the net.h of the client code. /** Maximum number of outgoing nodes */
static const int MAX_OUTBOUND_CONNECTIONS = 8;
Change that to whatever higher limit you need and fork out or create a PR in git and see that if it gets accepted by the community. (This has been suggested many a times but those are not to be changed and put even more load on the declining nodes). I would strongly deter doing the above, and so would many others. That's bad for the network in principle, network-wide inbound connection slots are a resource that shouldn't be used unnecessarily. And there is no reason to use more outbound connections than are needed to sync the chain. If you want to improve the network, then contribute incoming connections so that more people can join. i.e. open a port and get your bitcoin node to listen for other nodes on that port. Editing the hardcoded maximum outbounds is essentially the opposite; occupying other nodes incoming slots over and above what a single node needs, limiting the network instead of expanding it. |
|
|
|
While we are at it, Can someone tell me the effect of setting maxconnections=1? Does it become half duplex or something?
I think it fills outbound slots first, certainly if a node is catching up then inbound slots do not get negotiated until catch up to the chain tip is complete. |
|
|
|
So Luke's new proposal is actually a way to soft-fork to 600k weight units, which is not at all the same as 300kB. That's truly bizarre as an idea, apologies to Luke. That would mean keeping the base size at 1MB, and only being able to use 600kB within that base limit. The segwit discount would still reduce fees for segwit tx's, but the incentive to use segwit tx's as a way to boost capacity would disappear if the base size (1MB) was higher than the weigh limit (600kWU). Don't see the rationale for that at all. I'm disappointed with the press circus Luke has contributed to here, -- it's not the first time he's set things up perfectly for his words to be taken out of context and then been so so surprised at what happened. But he does make useful contributions, and in the fullness of time drawing more attention to the initial sync problem may be one too, even though I disagree with the approach. It seems like Luke has a fascination for exploring possibilities without much reasoning as to why the ends are desirable. In the case of the actual BIP141 segwit soft fork, that approach was great, as Luke was motivated to figure out a way to implement segwit. Someone with an "it'll never work" attitude would never have done so. Blockstream has unpublished code that implements an alternative serialization that reduces tx sizes by around 25%. I don't think it would actually improve IBD time except for very fast computers on fairly slow internet connections... initial sync is more utxo-update bound than bandwidth bound for most users. It might even slow it down, since the compact serialization is slower to decode. On a ludicrously fast machine (24 core 3GHz, nvme storage, syncing from local hosts over 10gbe) sync currently only proceeds at about 50mbit/sec. I've been nagging them to publish it. Their interest is in using it to increase capacity on the sat signal, but it's more generally useful. 50Mbit/s is high-end validation performance? Interesting. I expect and hope that all the IBD activity will move into the background. After that happens, then the time it takes is less important than the resources-- and at that point a 25% bandwidth improvement would look pretty good.
Are you referring to the hybrid SPV concept? (SPV synchronisation finishes first, IBD continues in the background). Or new UTXO set tech? |
|
|
|
Luke Jr lost his mind.
An argument can be made that Luke Jr was never in a rational frame of mind, to begin with. Luke has eccentric ideas for sure, but he also has good ideas that get adopted. |
|
|
|
That was the old thing, but apparently on twitter he's talking about something even less reasonable now.
In any case, I showed this thread to other developers and the response was uniformly a big wtf. I see. Ok, Luke's a bit single-minded about 300kB. This completely invalidates my interpretation of the old proposal; it seems he even wanted everyone to take a 300kB base size seriously even back when he first promoted it. Initial sync time does suck and is a problem, but the damage has been done-- since long ago-- no amount of size reduction will solve it. If it would then perhaps these ideas would get a bit of traction, but it won't...
Wasn't there an idea from sipa to change how transactions are serialized that reduced the entire chain's size? If one cares about IBD, one ought to be most interested in proposals that remediate the historic chain size as well as those that improve it forwards in time. |
|
|
|
|
It's a really old proposal. I thought it was trying to be too smart/subtle.
The idea was to reduce to 300kB base size, but also set a graduated increase schedule, based on absolute block heights (the 300kb step was set to take place at a blockheight back in 2017 IIRC). It finally reached 1MB base size again in 2024, and continued at a percentage rate (also IIRC). In other words, if the proposal was adopted today, we'd be past the 300kB stage already.
This was partly a psychologically based proposal, which is why people reacted badly, lol. I think Luke knew that 300kB base size would get laughed off, but he figured that since the blockchain grows constantly, that the closer we get to 2024 (when 1MB base would be reached again), the more people might begin to realise that reducing from the 1MB base size was smarter than it sounded back when the blockchain was a more manageable size.
Note that all of this is using base block figures, the real possible block size would be x2-4 the base block (so 300kb would in fact be 600-1200kB if all transactions in a given block are segwit txs).
Bear in mind that as we're still not in 2024, Luke's plan may actually work, and reducing the base from 1MB to whatever the schedule would be stepped to now (which has of course increased beyond 300kB) might look good to some people. It would probably still take some convincing, but there's still 5 years left on the clock.
|
|
|
|
Do you have any remote idea how many people have to die every year because of the current regime? 20k+. No, much more than that. Worldwide, it's in the 100's of thousands per year, and that's the low level genocide. Millions were killed in Syria, millions were killed in Iraq, millions killed in Libya, Vietnam, Nicaragua, Cambodia, Korea... Since Guaidó's proclamation on Jan 23, only in political demonstrations alone, 35 have been killed by the gov armed forces.. Today is an important demonstration day, how many more will die?
At the same time, this country has the highest crime rate of the hemisphere, with Caracas often surpassing Hondura's worst city (San Pedro Sula) with violent crime deaths per capita.
There is also the deaths provoked by socialist economy. An economy that resulted in no medicine and barely food.
So by both inaction and action, every day that passes without change, more people die. There is more if you dare to search a little. Just search "violent deaths Venezuela"...
There is also documented torture, as i posted in one of the threads...
Oh you're talking about the Maduro regime? I thought you meant the regime of the people you think should "save" (i.e. kill) the Venezuelan population. Sorry, my bad. (I hear the US regime "tortured some folks" too, the US president said it) |
|
|
|
The point is not how many of these people think that bitcoin is an alternative of cash or cards, but how many of them really use it or they are involved in the decentralized ecosystem we are trying to create. This would be a better survey that can push some pressure on the institutions or the governments of implementing them in e-mandates.
If you want a "decentralized ecosystem", then "governments implementing them in e-mandates" is not compatible with that. Bitcoin was created as a way to circumvent the government mandated money system. It's been successful without anyone trying to force you to use it, or without anyone being forced to accept it. That's what happens when something is genuinely good; people want it or want to do it only because of how good it is, not because someone forces them to. |
|
|
|
You think China is going to keep that "good guy" role for long. no That's less than 20 years away.
It already happened in Athens, the deal went bad and now the port that Chinese gov money built there is either mostly or entirely controlled by the Chinese gov. |
|
|
|
Being a complexe science doesn't mean there is nothing seen as certain. The existance of climate change is completely certain and there is no debate on this. The fact that it's human made at least in parts is also certain and not debatable.
The extent of this change, its danger and the actual impact of man are, of course, still debatable and will probably be for ever.
I agree with all of the above. I still don't accept that anthropogenic warming is a significant problem, which is consistent within the range of possibility with what you say above. |
|
|
|
America's answer is to increase military spending and intervention, whilst countries like Russia and China rely on trade and economic aid to gain control of countries that have been pushed into recession by the US.
It's good to see someone making this observation. If I was the russian or chinese leadership, I'd be incredibly happy that the US continually creates states that are pissed off with the US meddling in their affairs, as china and russia can play the good guy role by giving those harassed governments "no-strings attached" relief, only to discover that there are in fact significant strings attached later on. These apparent enemies (US/europe/china/russia) are accidently putting the rest of the world under their disunited influence as a result of their bickering. Imagine if the bickering quietened down to 1990's levels and all 4 world powers cooperated again. |
|
|
|
No there is not... I mean find anything supporting this claim will be challenge because the ONLY ongoing debate among scientists is the extent of the climate change. That's all.
Right, that's what I was referring to. Some scientists say the extent to which anthropogenic warming is a danger is negligible. They have a sound basis to make this claim, and they are climate scientists too. Saying "no there is not" is just the sort of lack of nuanced reasoning that produces such a polarised debate about global warming, which doesn't reflect the science itself, which is amongst the most complex (and hence nuanced) scientific disciplines there is. If you present your arguments in this topic like that, how can you expect anyone to take you seriously? |
|
|
|
Lightning payments are capped at ~ 0.04 BTC, the use-cases for that are limited. This will change in future, but this is what's possible today.
I read somewhere that you (with a deeper technical understanding) could lift this limit already, but I'm not sure how feasible it is right now, especially with how there is no demand yet for high value transactions. I do wonder though, do you think there will be a time where you can have 1000BTC channels just like you have 0.168BTC channels without tweaking and coding right now? There's a security trade-off though. Lightning involves running a hot wallet, the transaction limits are there to mitigate losses. Until the practices and/or tech to run hot wallets in a safer way are realised, observing amount limits is the best one-size way to minimise the impact. Those that are willing to risk larger amounts will be able to, when that feature is standardised (in the 1.1 spec I think) |
|
|
|
In my opinion the entire "Man Made Global Warming" debacle is an ingenious ploy traceable all the way up to those seeking ultimate power by creating a one world government.
At many stages it has attempted global wealth redistribution, to weaken the west and win the hearts of potential benefactor nations.
It attempts to destroy the economies of the west, making us spend money on nonsense to make us more poor so we are easier to take over.
It attempts to make us use less energy, making us weaker and easier to take over.
The CO2 theory is completely debunked in my opinion. So not only is the entire international scientific community wrong, they are all co-conspirators involved in a secret plot to use faked science to make their own home countries collapse and be taken over. They have also convinced the political leadership of all those same countries to get on board at destroying themselves as well. No one could figure it out except some random dudes on the internet. That's an exaggeration in many ways. Scientists have been very wrong about many many trends and phenomena in the past. They are not infallible to making mistakes, otherwise there would be little need for the peer review system. And there is an ongoing debate amongst climate scientists. The only people who push the narrative that the debate is over are the corporate media and the corporate-bought politicians. Why would anyone trust what they say? I have a great deal of sympathy for the CO 2 alarmists. Their heart is in the right place, being careful with the balance of nature is very important (human wisdom has been cognizant of this for thousands of years). But the facts don't support the anthropogenic warming hypothesis. Sorry, but the facts matter. |
|
|
|
How many people could lightning network support at the moment? It depends on the type of usage that dominates. Most of it is really nominal testing of the network atm (e.g. the graffiti wall website), but there is a some genuine commerce happening for VPN subscriptions and mobile topup (lightning is the 2nd most popular payment method at bitrefill.com, according to them). Assuming enough bitcoin went into the system
Enough for what? Lightning payments are capped at ~ 0.04 BTC, the use-cases for that are limited (i.e. the previously impractical micro-payments use case). This will change in future, but this is what's possible today. There is currently ~ 650 BTC in public lightning channels. It's not very easy to say how many users that can support until we know how it will be used. It's been said that the ultimate carrying capacity of lightning is many multiples higher than e.g. the VISA network, but that will simply incentivise the use of that extras capacity (new business models will almost certainly develop to take advantage of the novel capacity dynamics) |
|
|
|
It's unfortunate that most of them are totally skint and will be for their entire lives though.
except for all the programmers, who will increasingly represent the middle class economic bracket as a whole. Those robot AI algorithms aren't going to write themselves you know (well, certainly not yet). It's one of few industries with huge amounts of growth potential still intact. |
|
|
|
https://www.wired.com/story/wired-lost-bitcoin/HOW WIRED LOST $100,000 IN BITCOIN
BACK IN 2013, when you could still mine bitcoins at home, WIRED was sent a small, sleek mining device manufactured by the now-defunct Butterfly Labs. We turned on the Roku-looking machine in our San Francisco offices and allowed it to do its job. A small fortune was soon amassed, now worth around $100,000. Then, we lost the money. Forever... The story is really hard to follow. It sounds like they first decided on destroying the private keys so they couldn't access it, then they were sad after they realized what they did. So they had 13 bitcoins they had acquired from mining at least a couple blocks? The block reward was 25 BTC at the time. Someone in charge the mining managed to dupe their boss into thinking they had earned less BTC than they actually did. A weird story. Oh, so this might be partly saltiness? WIRED magazine got scammed on some BTC by one of their employees (who was clearly morally questionable, but was also smarter than the boss). It makes more sense now. |
|
|
|
|
Wasn't gonna comment, but thought of one that's hard to let go...
Wasn't WIRED part of the "Bitcoin's Dead" hall of fame back in 2014/2015? I wonder which will have the most significant impact on the world, Bitcoin or WIRED magazine.... oh no, that's right Bitcoin won that already
|
|
|
|
What my continent have failed to realized is that power won't be given to you unless you fight for it.
right, so you need: - Modern, well equipped, well trained army
- Diverse and free journalistic culture
- Diverse and free business culture
- Infrastructure to support all the above (communications, fortifications, transport etc)
- The army must defend all the above equally
If the army just defends the natural resources, then the people cannot act as the 2nd line of diffuse/distributed defense against those trying to interfere with and exploit the minerals. This is what made countries like Iceland, Switzerland and the US difficult to attack. If you get the balance wrong, China, US, Britain or France will launch a propaganda campaign against you, then kick your ass in the ensuing war. Actually fighting for power is not easy. |
|
|
|
Only now the money from exporting oil to the US is stopping, or more precisely, given to Guaidó instead of Maduro. There were no "sanctions" of that sort before 2019. In all the years of Chavez and Maduro, Venezuelan oil has kept going to the United States. The couple of American companies that left back then (over disagreements on conditions changed by Chavez) did not mean the oil stopped flowing. It was all sent by the Venezuelan state oil company PDVSA to the other Venezuelan state oil company CITGO in the US.
Self evidently not true, you obviously know alot of the details, yet you're avoiding the fact that Venezuela was prevented from using USD now for several years (hence Maduro's eventual introduction of the Petro state cryptocurrency in 2017). It's a big barrier to selling oil exports if you cannot transact in the currency in which it's priced. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
