What contagion? Everything is fine!  just b/c he could get that wrong doesn't mean his entire thesis is wrong. plus, he's got me as a counter balance.  Getting that key premise wrong does in fact mean his entire consequent thesis is wrong. EG: I think we're about to see an explosion of bandwidth to the home, because the ongoing financial crisis will get much worse and big companies are investing in infrastructure again. And people LOVE streaming video.... ^That^ doesn't make sense. QED, Gavin explicitly and inseparably tied larger block feasibility to the supposed end of the financial crisis and subsequent future infrastructure investment. Gavin is right about one thing however. The sky will not fall because of full blocks. Now please return to the normal Chicken Little routine. It would be so quite in here without your panicked squawking.  you have no idea what a true fee mkt is. it's not what we're getting now. the above graph i just put up shows tremendous stress on Bitcoin usage by new and existing users. what's ironic is that the continuous stream of full blocks is a reflection of miners begging for bigger blocks so that they can chew through that mempool in an instant. that "clearing" of the mempool would enforce losses on the spammer. right now, they can just recycle their spam as it gets deleted every 24 h while still causing damage to the user experience. get your head out of your ass. |
|
|
|
look at this. 80K unconf tx's and 6.76TPS and yet gmax et al says there's no problem. all that wasted computational work done by full nodes for blocks that will never clear those unconf tx's. i told you long ago these guys will never even be able to recognize a problem even when it's staring them in the face and even after it's beat them over the head:  |
|
|
|
What contagion? Everything is fine!  just b/c he could get that wrong doesn't mean his entire thesis is wrong. plus, he's got me as a counter balance. |
|
|
|
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. Technical issues http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=^dji Market crashing? Not anymore!  How con-ven-ient!  yep. you can bet the glitch was to protect some insiders ponzi. |
|
|
|
No really guys there's no contagion......... from Greece  EDIT: very promising that BTC remains independent i kept telling you they were lying to you |
|
|
|
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. Technical issues http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=^dji yeah, iCEBlow (BS). other exchanges have been getting "glitched" too the last few weeks. |
|
|
|
back up for me but stocks headed down the shoot. oil plunging:  |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
Emergency, emergency!:  |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
Yeah these three buried posts cleared a few things up 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. |
|
|
|
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.  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 (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. |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
