I agree with him that the block size limit is an anti-spam feature and should be treated as such, but the question is why (for example) 20 MB of spam is considered acceptable now. I see no good reason to allow 20x as much spam, when little to nothing has been done to control spam in any other way. according to the new XT code today, the max would be 8MB, with doubling every 2y if 75% miners up-version. you'd have to believe, for all the same reasons we've argued against for yrs, that a large miner would be willing to risk paying 8MB worth of spam tx fees for a prolonged period of time to try for the fuzzy goal of driving smaller miners out of business over an unspecified period of time, which may never come, and which comes at great risk to themselves from orphaning. Not necessarily. It could be more of a gradual process of spam being accepted into a system that isn't well protected against spam. The miners who are better equipped to produce somewhat larger blocks produce them (by including lower value, lower fee transactions aka spam), which puts more of a strain on smaller miners who drop out. As smaller miners drop out, the average block size then increases, which puts even more strain on the slightly-less-small miners, who then drop out, repeating the process. The end result is larger spammier blocks, and less broad participation in mining. The fact remains that as I said there is no more of a mechanism to control spam other than a block size limit than there was when satoshi added the block limit, and I don't really see how spam is 20x8x less of a problem or potential problem now. I'd support a smaller increase though, since I do see technological progress as having reduced the threat of spam by a smaller factor. Longer term I see the 8 MB and auto doubling every two years as even worse than 20 MB. There is no rational basis to believe with high confidence that gigabyte blocks would be acceptable in 15 years. if you are not claiming any relative connectivity advantage of a large vs small miner, why does a large block filled with spam cause a small miner to choke anymore than another large miner? and if ANY miner, large or small, receives a large block that requires extra processing time, he can immediately resort to the defensive mechanism of hashing an empty block header until he finishes processing the large block. then he goes back to hashing a normal block with tx's. we saw this exact behavior in the Stress Test. |
|
|
|
|
New poll above.
please vote.
|
|
|
|
Excellent and timely post by Kondrad! Impressive--I recall he also posted a comprehensive article on sidechains, shortly after the Blockstream white paper was published. yeah, it's a killer and extremely bad news for the 1MB folk. |
|
|
|
I agree with him that the block size limit is an anti-spam feature and should be treated as such, but the question is why (for example) 20 MB of spam is considered acceptable now. I see no good reason to allow 20x as much spam, when little to nothing has been done to control spam in any other way. according to the new XT code today, the max would be 8MB, with doubling every 2y if 75% miners up-version. you'd have to believe, for all the same reasons we've argued against for yrs, that a large miner would be willing to risk paying 8MB worth of spam tx fees for a prolonged period of time to try for the fuzzy goal of driving smaller miners out of business over an unspecified period of time, which may never come, and which comes at great risk to themselves from orphaning. given that the top 5 Chinese miners have already told us they are stuck behind the GFC with poor connectivity, i'm not sure how they do this mythical attack. trying to tap into the relay network apparently doesn't help. they've already told us flat out that 8MB is the max they can handle at this point and Gavin has demonstrated he is a mature negotiator and conceded this metric to them unlike the Blockstream ppl who always just say "NO". if a user wants to spam 8MB worth of stress tx's it will cost them 8x as much as today. expensive? maybe, maybe not. but at least they will be paying good fees to miners who will be happy with that. the real question is can they sustain that spam for any length of time. we'll just have to see. then the question is why hasn't anybody done that yet? i think it's also important to note that if someone tries this attack, it's reasonable to expect that miners and other users will react. either by jacking tx fees even exorbitantly higher or blocking the offending ip address. point being, no one is just going to stand aside and watch a spammer destroy the network. |
|
|
|
|
XT nodes now 147
if someone can provide an easy Ubuntu tute to switch from Core to XT that would be great.
|
|
|
|
Although I've not studied Monaro at all it feels like pre-mine scammery to me. Whatever good, bad or irrelevant things there might be going on with Monero, it is certainly not premined. If you had done even a tiny bit of studying you would have figured that out. Given the tiny value of the coin at this point you can certainly be excused for not investing even that level of effort though. I have no idea why it is discussed on this thread so much. Some will probably blame me for bringing it up, but they'd be 100% wrong. Maybe kazukiPIMP? |
|
|
|
I think you are making a catastrophic mistake to ignore them. I hope your view doesn't represent Monero's position?
Nobody is ignoring them. I just think they won't really have much relevance, or if they do they will destabilize the greater Bitcoin system. But I doubt the latter because the obstacles of relying on far weaker security such as merged mining, along with giving up most of Bitcoin's network effect, are simply too great. The vast majority will just stick with vanilla Bitcoin, which will force the rest to do the same. Monero is a piece of software and doesn't have a position, but if against all odds sidechains become widely used the equivalent functionality will likely be added to Monero, and then Bitcoin can become a sidechain to Monero (no, I'm not kidding). While I don't agree with smooth that Monero has a future, I do agree with everything he's saying about SC's. So in that perverse sense, Monero has a greater chance to survive than Blockstream and SC's. Go for it. At least Monero is not a leech. |
|
|
|
so ... block size will be 8,192,000,000 bytes in 2036. see that big green candle? ... Is it you who created that candle ? I guess he was the one No |
|
|
|
what Gavin's XT proposal does is not only automate out financiers, banksters, politicians, & corrupt gvts, but also DEVS.
esp a few core devs who think they know better.
and that, imo, is a worthy goal.
heads up.
the anti Gavin guys have taken to a new strategy on Reddit to push upvoted primary comments DOWN. that's by sub-commenting negatively and heavily in the top most upvoted comment so ppl read their negative shit first near the top. phantomcircuit (Strateman from Blockstream) and BitFast (Greenaddress skeptic) are filling up Gavin's thread with this strategy.
Reddit is already heavily astroturfed in favor of Gavin's strategy. Which if does include pushing other devs out is deeply wrong. I was on the fence before but I cannot support Gavin if he is trying to become the king of bitcoin. Its fundamentally anti-bitcoin and everything we stand for. What does this all come from? The aggressive need to scale so we can bubble again? Since when has this community become so greedy. you miss the whole pt of what i said. Gavin is ALSO trying to automate out HIMSELF. if you've observed Gavin carefully ever since he was given the keys by Satoshi, he has always been much more optimistic and hands off with Bitcoin than all the other core devs who just obsess all day long about what's wrong with Bitcoin and what they should be doing about it. Gavin, being the understanding leader that he is, simply let those guys go off and tinker at the edges for the longest time. now, when the block size limit continues to be hit, he HAS to step up and take charge to prevent repeated DoS'ing of the network. in the meantime, what was entirely unpredictable was a faction of core dev going off and creating their own private for profit company which actually depends on deprecating/choking Bitcoin Core. his vision with XT, which i entirely agree with, is to get it to a point where it upgrades itself over time to keep up with internet capacity. he doesn't want this shitfest debate coming up again. that's not good news for devs who gotta dev. this is a worthy goal.
Given the keys by Satoshi? Even you are blindly repeating that? Satoshi only gave him the alert keys, the metaphorical keys you speak of do not exist. Gavin took advantage of Satoshi's disappearance by repeating that same story over and over again of Satoshi putting his email on the website like it means he is Satoshi's heir. There is no such position in bitcoin anyways.What you portray as 'going off to tinker' and 'obsessing' is creating solutions and being cautious about modifying what is like changing the function of a car engine while the car is moving. This hyperbole betrays the weakness of your position, only the weak side resorts to such in a discussion. The network has been DoSed, but not significantly and in any capacity to impact more than most users. Deprecating/choking bitcoin core? How? By moving wealth (that probably wasn't already there due to an inadequacy) from something bitcoin can't do well or can't do at all into a sidechain? The only choking is of possible future financial wealth, which shows stake in the game. what's ridiculous is your claim in bold. if it was so controversial, why hasn't your point come up before? i've never heard any of the other core devs spouting your allegations, even now. |
|
|
|
what Gavin's XT proposal does is not only automate out financiers, banksters, politicians, & corrupt gvts, but also DEVS.
esp a few core devs who think they know better.
and that, imo, is a worthy goal.
heads up.
the anti Gavin guys have taken to a new strategy on Reddit to push upvoted primary comments DOWN. that's by sub-commenting negatively and heavily in the top most upvoted comment so ppl read their negative shit first near the top. phantomcircuit (Strateman from Blockstream) and BitFast (Greenaddress skeptic) are filling up Gavin's thread with this strategy.
Reddit is already heavily astroturfed in favor of Gavin's strategy. Which if does include pushing other devs out is deeply wrong. I was on the fence before but I cannot support Gavin if he is trying to become the king of bitcoin. Its fundamentally anti-bitcoin and everything we stand for. What does this all come from? The aggressive need to scale so we can bubble again? Since when has this community become so greedy. you miss the whole pt of what i said. Gavin is ALSO trying to automate out HIMSELF. if you've observed Gavin carefully ever since he was given the keys by Satoshi, he has always been much more optimistic and hands off with Bitcoin than all the other core devs who just obsess all day long about what's wrong with Bitcoin and what they should be doing about it. Gavin, being the understanding leader that he is, simply let those guys go off and tinker at the edges for the longest time. now, when the block size limit continues to be hit, he HAS to step up and take charge to prevent repeated DoS'ing of the network. in the meantime, what was entirely unpredictable was a faction of core dev going off and creating their own private for profit company which actually depends on deprecating/choking Bitcoin Core. his vision with XT, which i entirely agree with, is to get it to a point where it upgrades itself over time to keep up with internet capacity. he doesn't want this shitfest debate coming up again. that's not good news for devs who gotta dev. this is a worthy goal. |
|
|
|
|
heads up.
the anti Gavin guys have taken to a new strategy on Reddit to push upvoted primary comments DOWN. that's by sub-commenting negatively and heavily in the top most upvoted comment so ppl read their negative shit first near the top. phantomcircuit (Strateman from Blockstream) and BitFast (Greenaddress skeptic) are filling up Gavin's thread with this strategy.
|
|
|
|
|
what Gavin's XT proposal does is not only automate out financiers, banksters, politicians, & corrupt gvts, but also DEVS.
esp a few core devs who think they know better.
and that, imo, is a worthy goal.
|
|
|
|
so ... block size will be 8,192,000,000 bytes in 2036. see that big green candle?  |
|
|
|
the market is going to LOVE Gavin's new XT release. it set a reliable "plan" going forward. markets love certainty and the message is clear: BITCOIN IS PRIMED FOR GROWTH. |
|
|
|
So if the protocol breaks from a $300/hour usage test it wasn't worth much to begin with. Of course the protocol is not going to break. Does anyone thing it will? It's not about the protocol or the network. Ok break, is a little harsh. The usage of the term depends on the same structural divides currently splintering the development. Namely, what is the protocol/network for? It will be broken under this stress test WRT micro transactions, as they will be crowded out due to cost. I don't want to comment further on this as I don't feel qualified to pass judgement. I do feel it's an interesting development, and am intrigued to see where the chips land afterwards. Will certain peoples standpoints soften? Will it spark some development compromise? Or is the whole idea some sort of scam to somehow make a few coins? My bet would be that the Coinwallet ploy is tied to that large asymmetric bid wall on BFX which is probably someone's short position trying to get out. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
