Bitcoin Forum
February 07, 2016, 05:52:21 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.11.2 [Torrent]
 
  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 80 81 82 83 84 85 ... 969 »
681  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: July 08, 2015, 04:00:36 PM
back up for me but stocks headed down the shoot.  oil plunging:

682  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: July 08, 2015, 03:57:46 PM
I just heard the NYSE halted trading.

geezuz.

you see, it's a systemic global problem as i have been saying all along.

the sweet smell of Deflation.
683  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: July 08, 2015, 02:15:58 PM
684  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: July 08, 2015, 02:01:08 PM
Dow - 179
685  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: July 08, 2015, 05:38:36 AM
Uber!
686  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: July 08, 2015, 04:30:34 AM
China in trouble:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-07-08/china-trade-halts-hit-2-2-trillion-as-state-intervention-fails
687  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: July 08, 2015, 03:54:18 AM
Emergency, emergency!:

688  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: July 08, 2015, 03:19:25 AM
this is a very important insight to understand when viewing the costs of the current spamming attacks going on in the network right now:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3chtdp/the_blocksize_cap_is_basically_worthless_for/csvqatg?context=3

IOW, the costs of the 1MB cap are much greater than advertised.  

consider all that spam stacked up in the mempool currently.  all this has been passed around to the entire network and full nodes have had to validate all that crap upon receipt and then store it in memory awaiting a block to clear it.  if the block doesn't come that incl that spam, it gets deleted within 24-48 hr returning the tx fees to the attacker.  note that the attacker doesn't even care to get the tx's cleared; he simply wants to cause all sorts of congestion (which he is getting) so as to disrupt and discourage new and existing user growth which prevents Bitcoin from squaring it's value thru Metcalfe's Law.  

fuck the fee mkt the mouth-breathing Cripplecoiner's spout off about.  the 1MB cap is much more expensive to honest Bitcoin.
689  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: July 08, 2015, 02:23:54 AM
this is a very important insight to understand when viewing the costs of the current spamming attacks going on in the network right now:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3chtdp/the_blocksize_cap_is_basically_worthless_for/csvqatg?context=3
690  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: July 08, 2015, 01:16:47 AM
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3chtdp/the_blocksize_cap_is_basically_worthless_for/
691  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: July 08, 2015, 01:02:41 AM
great Reddit thread about how the network of full nodes is VERY capable of handling much more than the FUD 2-3TPS being pushed.  it looks like it can handle anywhere from 221-442TPS at peak.  no wonder my full nodes have been sitting around unstressed and underutilized:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3cgyiv/new_transaction_record_442_txs_the_nodes_endured/

Yeah these three buried posts cleared a few things up

Quote
Tardigrade1 8 points 2 hours ago*

Well, not entirely true. There is more to processing a transaction than propagating and storing it. But now that discussion has proven wrong and confirming that the only problem is the blocksize. There is no reason not to upgrade from a node/network perspective.

Before these spam attacks there was definitly discussion about if the nodes could handle the large volume of tx/s spamming them. This has now gone.

 

[]awemany 11 points an hour ago*

This is a very good point. What you are basically saying is this, if I understand you correctly - please correct me if I am wrong:

The Bitcoin network got indeed 442tx/s for a short while, filling up mempools.

That means that nodes processed and validated 442tx/s for a while. They only didn't write them to the block chain, to disk as valid blocks, because enforced protocol rules right now prevent that.

The only reason the average actual rate didn't go up to 442tx/s is because the hard blocksize limit prevents blocks from being that large.

Note that without IBLT being implemented yet, you'd have to cut the effective transaction rate in half. Mined blocks would about contain the same number of transactions that get put into the network.

But this still means that the current, as-is Bitcoin network can handle 221 tx/s for a short period of time.

I think it is thus very safe to assume it can handle at least a tenth of that (to play it extra safe) continuously.

That would be 22.1tx/s. ~7MB blocks.

Lets please remove the damn limit now.

[]Tardigrade1 12 points an hour ago

Yes precisely. This spam-attack has been far more interesting than people here realize. What we learnt was that a very high rate of transactions can still successfully propagate across the world, from node to node. Then they just wait to be included in the block.


M_O_A is making an ass of himself throughout that thread.
692  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: July 07, 2015, 11:14:38 PM
hey, since everybody and their mother now knows i'm an eye doc, how's your diabetic retinopathy?  i was dying to ask you that 3 yr ago back in my cgminer days when you first revealed that.  but that was before HF. Tongue   that's right up my alley you know.
Well, after lots of laser shots each visit (I'm pretty sure the total was 100 or more) I stopped going (about 2 years ago?)
Yeah I should get around to going back again when I can afford it Tongue (before I go blind)

clinically significant diabetic macular edema is not a good thing.  you need to tighten those blood sugar levels.  yes, laser and occasionally intravitreal injections of Avastin can be helpful.  good luck.
693  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: July 07, 2015, 11:09:27 PM
On the topic of block verification times, people on Reddit are saying this block (filled with one huge TX) took up to 25 seconds to verify:
yes, they're actually quoting pieter and I from #bitcoin-dev (telling the miner in advance that the transaction he was creating would take a _LONG_ time to verify). They created a huge non-standard 1MB transaction and part of the verification time is quadratic (in the number of inputs).

It's actually possible to create a block that would take many minutes to verify, though not with standard transactions-- only something contrived.


and these have to be self mined, correct?

I'm not sure everybody can broadcast transaction.

that's the pt.  someone over on Reddit is screaming that this 1MB single tx block is affirmation that bigger blocks is a BAD idea and they're extrapolating to a  20MB tx block as an example.  

2 points.  first f2pool wasn't performing an attack with this tx; it was actually helping the network by reducing the UTXO set by consolidating all those small inputs.  second, only a miner can execute a non-std tx of this size.  there is a 100kB max tx size in the IsStandard patch rules (credit nullc) that all propagated tx must adhere to to be a "std tx".  otherwise full nodes won't propagate them.  in other words, a typical gvt or bank spammer can't shove out into the network a huge 20MB non std tx except if it is a miner who self constructs this tx and self mines it.
694  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: July 07, 2015, 10:46:14 PM
there's alot more going on than what meets the eye:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3cgft7/largest_transaction_ever_mined_999657_kb_consumes/csvbtp4

take it from an eye doctor.
695  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: July 07, 2015, 10:29:14 PM
great Reddit thread about how the network of full nodes is VERY capable of handling much more than the FUD 2-3TPS being pushed.  it looks like it can handle anywhere from 221-442TPS at peak.  no wonder my full nodes have been sitting around unstressed and underutilized:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3cgyiv/new_transaction_record_442_txs_the_nodes_endured/
696  Bitcoin / Development & Technical Discussion / Re: "SPV Mining" or mining on invalidated blocks on: July 07, 2015, 10:03:01 PM
If a majority is SPV-mining, then they will build f, g, h and so on.  These are all empty blocks.


does this mean a majority of the entire network and is what happened last night?
697  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: July 07, 2015, 09:52:26 PM
On the topic of block verification times, people on Reddit are saying this block (filled with one huge TX) took up to 25 seconds to verify:
yes, they're actually quoting pieter and I from #bitcoin-dev (telling the miner in advance that the transaction he was creating would take a _LONG_ time to verify). They created a huge non-standard 1MB transaction and part of the verification time is quadratic (in the number of inputs).

It's actually possible to create a block that would take many minutes to verify, though not with standard transactions-- only something contrived.


and these have to be self mined, correct?
698  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: July 07, 2015, 08:06:27 PM
If we talk about fluctuation in the prices of gold , that has always happened in the economy . What hasn't happened is the people who are comfortable with Gold investing their bucks , into equity or Bitcoin , for that matter. Gold is the safe secure return ,and supports the traditional mindset. It needs to be changed.

until or unless Bitcoin can manage to get into the hands of ppl worldwide, esp that African kid mining for gold, it won't become a digital gold.
699  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: July 07, 2015, 07:28:31 PM
Cypherdoc, what are the latest updates regarding the block size debate ?

i'm not aware of any progress really.  you can follow bitcoin-dev mailing list for the details but everything i've seen there hasn't shown much progress.

may someone else who is really following it closely can comment.
700  Economy / Speculation / Re: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. on: July 07, 2015, 07:20:35 PM
as you know, even Gavin talks about this memory problem from UTXO.  and yes, i read the Reddit thread that resulted in which you participated and i'm aware that UTXO can be dynamically cached according to needs.
http://gavinandresen.ninja/utxo-uhoh

Gavin was insufficently precise. There is a reddit thread is full of people calling gavin a fool ( Sad ) for saying "memory" when he should have been saying fast storage.  https://twitter.com/petertoddbtc/status/596710423094788097

Why do you think it's prudent to argue this with me?

Okay, lets take a bet. Since you're so confident; surely you'll grant me 1000:1 odds?-- I'll give my side away to a public cause.

The question is "Is the entire UTXO set kept in ram in Bitcoin Core ever released?"

I will bet 3 BTC and, with the 1000:1 odds, if you lose you'll pay 3000 BTC (which I will to the hashfast liquidators, to return it to the forum members that it was taken from; which will also save you some money in ongoing lawsuit against you).

Sounds good?  How will we adjudicate?  If not, what is your counter-offer for the terms?

Quote
i didn't say this full block spam attack we're undergoing wasn't affecting my node at_all.  sure, i'm in swap, b/c of the huge #unconf tx's but it hasn't shut down or stressed my nodes to any degree.  one of the arguments by Cripplecoiners was that these large block attacks would shut full nodes down from destabilization resulting in centralization.  i'm not seeing that.
The highest number of unconfirmed transactions I've seen ever is about 8MB. Even if we assume the real max was 3x that this is not explaining your hundreds of megabytes of swap.   We just had half the hashpower of the network mining without validating creating multiple large forks and large reorginizations, but you don't see any destabilization. Okay.

Let me chime in hear quickly, because I think Greg and I are talking about slightly different things.  My model was considering the time between the first moment that a pool could begin hashing on a blockheader, and when the previous block had been processed, a new non-empty block template constructed, and the hashers re-assigned to work on this non-empty block.  

It looks like this time, empirically, is 15 sec (F2Pool) and 30 sec (AntPool), based on these estimates.  

Here I suspect you're suffering from an excess of empiracisism without adequately devling into the mechenism.   You can directly measure that time time from input to minable on an actual node under your control and will observe the time is hundreds of times faster than your estimate. Why?   Miners don't magically know when their pool has new work, they'll get work in the first milliseconds and then grind on it some time before submitting returning work.  Even if the pool long polls them, it takes time to replace work. So what I suspect you're actually measuring there is the latency of the mining process...  which is consistent with what we've expirenced with P2Pool (5-20 second latencies from ASIC miners are common).

I noted you posted a result of a classification, did you run the same data through a simple logistic regression with prior size as the treatment? The intercept in the model would be interesting.

But indeed, these conversations have been conflating several seperate issues (latency vs throughput, etc.). Tricky to avoid that since they're all relevant.

but you haven't verified that f2pool or Antpool has increased their minrelaytxfee have you to minimize their mempool?
I have, they'd previously cranked it down, and were producing small blocks and were flamed in public.  They've since turned it back up.

Quote
remember, this whole mempool discussion was based off you responding to Peter's mathematics post the other day where you argued that the block verification times were only 80ms for a 250 kB block b/c tx's had been pre-verified after being passed around to all nodes across the network and didn't require re-verification by miners on the relay network and was therefore a refutation of his hypothesis of increasing block verification times (16-37sec on avg) leading to SPV mining.
As PeterR points out, they only need to wait for verification to actually verify (which they're not doing today), though they may have to wait longer to include transactions---- though I point out thats not fundimental e.g. no matter how big the backlog is you can produce a template sufficient to completely fill a block while doing no more work than handling a mempool of twice the maximum block size.  (by using a tiered mempool, though no one has bothered to implement this yet-- no one has even been complaining about how long createnewblock takes, due to the ability to produce empty blocks without skipping transactions).


well, you did claim some of it was in RAM; https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/35asg6/gavin_andresen_utxo_uhoh/cr2za45
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 80 81 82 83 84 85 ... 969 »
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!