Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud)

[coalitionfor8mb]

I don't even know how to name it.... Now Peter R is hijacking the dev mailing list with his made-up GIFs. I'm out of words
https://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org/msg02469.html

It's disturbing to see one man capable of such consistent and immovable sophistry. He's very talented in that department.

Wouldn't be surprised if Peter & Mike privately pitched each other propaganda material & ideas.. Truly a disturbing merry bunch of sociopaths

Whining nobodies.

I think, you're being too critical about Peter & Mike.

[1714244141]

1714244141

[1714244141]

1714244141

[1714244141]

1714244141

[sidhujag]

Wouldnt solving the miner anonymity and latency of propagating blocks solve this issue and we can all agree not to increase block size if we understand that bitcoin block mining is a settlement process rather than a real-time payment processor?

Aslong as majority of miner's aren't subjected to regulation (because they are anonymous) and the anonymity doesn't introduce extra lag or that we find a more efficient way to propagate blocks then I think XT will become redundant no? What am I missing here?

Is it about fees? but increasing blocksize will introduce more spam which makes the entire system less efficient?

The concerns are two fold (ranked from my own opinion):

1. Raising cost of entry to become a network peer (running a full node)

2. Mining centralization.

1. Isn't efficiency in storage capacity and bandwidth overcoming the demand for it with our current block structure? With bigger blocks perhaps demand capacity and bandwidth will be higher, but the tradeoff is less fees correct? If so then I'd like to know based on an assumption on the entire world running on bitcoin that what the percentage of success of having a transaction get included in a block with current limits such that it is set with 0 fees. (IMO having it completed within 5 days is not bad, which competes with overseas transfer times today.)

2. With bigger blocks miners have no choice but to read headers off of each other to try to be profitable, and even bigger blocks will cause more centralization correct? However what if the value of bitcoin rises? Perhaps bigger blocks can be afforded if bitcoin was of sufficient value to follow the difficulty curve.. and in lean times those that do not believe in its long term potential can give up and be replaced with ones that do (those that aren't doing it strictly for business, converting to fiat). I don't find this issue as important as the need to have miners anonymous as regulation can really cripple the network if miners can be physically identified. By adding anonymity this includes latency in the system that will encourage centralization just like bigger blocks would do, but bigger blocks is not really the largest issue here in regards to centralization of miners.

[sidhujag]

Wouldnt solving the miner anonymity and latency of propagating blocks solve this issue and we can all agree not to increase block size if we understand that bitcoin block mining is a settlement process rather than a real-time payment processor?

Aslong as majority of miner's aren't subjected to regulation (because they are anonymous) and the anonymity doesn't introduce extra lag or that we find a more efficient way to propagate blocks then I think XT will become redundant no? What am I missing here?

Is it about fees? but increasing blocksize will introduce more spam which makes the entire system less efficient?

The concerns are two fold (ranked from my own opinion):

1. Raising cost of entry to become a network peer (running a full node)

2. Mining centralization.

Increasing the block size does not lead to increased mining centralization. It is true that an increased blocksize will lead to it being more expensive to run a full node, but that in my opinion is better then the alternative, it should be a balancing act after all. I also do not think that Bitcoin is just a settlement network, it can be and is much more then just that. Bitcoin is many things and we should not restrict its use especially if we do not need to do so. Increasing the blocksize will lead to less centralization compared to keeping the block size at one megabyte. Bitcoin is a commodity and a currency just like the gold and silver coins of the ancient world.

This article explains well why we should increase the block size: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=946236.0

I think it does. Block propogation delay is increased, latency to have block included increases so miners start mining the next block even before the previous one is sent to the entire network. Miners start sending headers to each other to get a headstart on the next block leading to centralization.

Regarding bitcoin not being a settlement system, there is a reason why Satoshi did have 10 minute blocks and I wouldn't want to second guess his motives. If it were designed to be a real-time processing system it would have been designed differently, see Bitshares for an example of using a consensus algorithm that allows for real-time processing with faster block times.

[VeritasSapere]

Increasing the block size does not lead to increased mining centralization.

Interesting. Do you have any proof for this conjecture?

I have explained it in more detail here in the article that I written on the subject:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1164464.0

It is not conjecture since my theories are based on the factual observations of how the Bitcoin network functions today. To simplify the argument for you however it is based on the fact that the vast majority of miners do not run full nodes for the purpose of mining. The pools run the full nodes for mining instead, that is why miners are not effected by the increased difficulty of running a full node, because miners do not run full nodes for the purpose of mining. This is why increasing the blocksize does not lead to increased mining centralization.

[RoadTrain]

Increasing the block size does not lead to increased mining centralization.

Interesting. Do you have any proof for this conjecture?

I have explained it in more detail here in the article that I written on the subject:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1164464.0

It is not conjecture since my theories are based on the factual observations of how the Bitcoin network functions today. To simplify the argument for you however it is based on the fact that the vast majority of miners do not run full nodes for the purpose of mining. The pools run the full nodes for mining instead, that is why miners are not effected by the increased difficulty of running a full node, because miners do not run full nodes for the purpose of mining. This is why increasing the blocksize does not lead to increased mining centralization.

Not sure I get it. Either way, miners, be it pools or solo miners, have to run full nodes (if they are actually doing their job properly). The centralization pressure here mainly comes not from validation costs, but from propagation costs. And a lot here depends on the network topology (e.g. The Great Firewall), i.e. the limiting factor is latency, not bandwidth. It's been discussed many times here.

[Carlton Banks]

It is not conjecture since my theories are based on the factual observations of how the Bitcoin network functions today. To simplify the argument for you however it is based on the fact that the vast majority of miners do not run full nodes for the purpose of mining. The pools run the full nodes for mining instead, that is why miners are not effected by the increased difficulty of running a full node, because miners do not run full nodes for the purpose of mining. This is why increasing the blocksize does not lead to increased mining centralization.

The pool operators have no choice but to include their running costs as a part of their fees. That means that the full costs of expanding network resource requirements are still referred to pool users, just indirectly. You're clearly not competent to assess this sort of thing, despite inviting people to read countless paragraphs of your "factual observations".

[VeritasSapere]

Regarding bitcoin not being a settlement system, there is a reason why Satoshi did have 10 minute blocks and I wouldn't want to second guess his motives. If it were designed to be a real-time processing system it would have been designed differently, see Bitshares for an example of using a consensus algorithm that allows for real-time processing with faster block times.

I accept zero confirmation transactions at my brick and mortar store and it works perfectly, people can also use payment processors for instant transactions as well of course. Satoshi did most definitely support larger blocks, and in regards to you saying he envisioned Bitcoin to be a settlement network and not a payment system, I do not think that is the case after all why would the title of the whitepaper be A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System. I think that Bitcoin is both a payment system and a settlement network and much more, we should not restrict its use if we have no good reason to do so. Bitcoin is both a commodity and a currency just like the gold and silver coins of ancient times.

[brg444]

Increasing the block size does not lead to increased mining centralization.

Interesting. Do you have any proof for this conjecture?

I have explained it in more detail here in the article that I written on the subject:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1164464.0

It is not conjecture since my theories are based on the factual observations of how the Bitcoin network functions today. To simplify the argument for you however it is based on the fact that the vast majority of miners do not run full nodes for the purpose of mining. The pools run the full nodes for mining instead, that is why miners are not effected by the increased difficulty of running a full node, because miners do not run full nodes for the purpose of mining. This is why increasing the blocksize does not lead to increased mining centralization.

Durrr. Look retard, let's step out of your reality distortion field for a second and consider this:

Existing chinese mining pools are already co-operating to some extent in a scheme called SPV mining because of very public propagation problems under the existing 1 MB limit.

Until you can coherently explain why it is so then no one should be bothered with what "you think" or what "you agree" or not with.

Thank you.

[brg444]

Regarding bitcoin not being a settlement system, there is a reason why Satoshi did have 10 minute blocks and I wouldn't want to second guess his motives. If it were designed to be a real-time processing system it would have been designed differently, see Bitshares for an example of using a consensus algorithm that allows for real-time processing with faster block times.

I accept zero confirmation transactions at my brick and mortar store and it works perfectly, people can also use payment processors for instant transactions as well of course. Satoshi did most definitely support larger blocks, and in regards to you saying he envisioned Bitcoin to be a settlement network and not a payment system, I do not think that is the case after all why would the title of the whitepaper be A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System. I think that Bitcoin is both a payment system and a settlement network and much more, we should not restrict its use if we have no good reason to do so. Bitcoin is both a commodity and a currency just like the gold and silver coins of ancient times.

It works perfectly until you get cheated out of your money by someone attacking you. Are you oblivious to the current controversy over transaction malleability and the problem zero-confirmation transactions entail?

Of course pretending 0-conf transactions "work perfectly" in your store is equivalent to saying one can cross the road blindfolded and not die. If you attempt it once or twice a week (which I'm certain is the case with your "Bitcoin business") it might be true but numerous repeated attempts could result in serious head trauma.

Satoshi did most definitely support larger blocks

Everytime you pull out Satoshi's name to support your position it necessarily undermines most of your argument.

A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System

Bitcoin is that and this function does not have anything to do with transaction throughput.

[VeritasSapere]

Increasing the block size does not lead to increased mining centralization.

Interesting. Do you have any proof for this conjecture?

I have explained it in more detail here in the article that I written on the subject:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1164464.0

It is not conjecture since my theories are based on the factual observations of how the Bitcoin network functions today. To simplify the argument for you however it is based on the fact that the vast majority of miners do not run full nodes for the purpose of mining. The pools run the full nodes for mining instead, that is why miners are not effected by the increased difficulty of running a full node, because miners do not run full nodes for the purpose of mining. This is why increasing the blocksize does not lead to increased mining centralization.

Not sure I get it. Either way, miners, be it pools or solo miners, have to run full nodes (if they are actually doing their job properly). The centralization pressure here mainly comes not from validation costs, but from propagation costs. And a lot here depends on the network topology (e.g. The Great Firewall), i.e. the limiting factor is latency, not bandwidth. It's been discussed many times here.

Try and understand what I am saying here, it is a very important distinction. If you have read my article you will know I have made the comparison to pools acting like a type of representative democracy for miners within a free market. There are no real solo miners in Bitcoin anymore, to be a solo miner it requires an industrial scale operation to counter the variance and even then the pools are still used instead, even if it is a private pool. I am a miner and I am not running a full node, I point my hashing power towards slush and they run the full node for me instead. This is how the vast majority of mining power operates today and this is the reality of Bitcoin mining today and it does work. In the case of the Chinese miners, they could point their hashing power towards a pool outside of china, or Chinese pools can be setup outside of china as well if that specifically became a problem for them.

[RoadTrain]

I accept zero confirmation transactions at my brick and mortar store and it works perfectly, people can also use payment processors for instant transactions as well of course.

...until it doesn't. While it may be workable for some businesses, it's certainly not safe and will never be. In your case, you're just agreeing to swallow losses in case of an easily executed double-spend.

[VeritasSapere]

It is not conjecture since my theories are based on the factual observations of how the Bitcoin network functions today. To simplify the argument for you however it is based on the fact that the vast majority of miners do not run full nodes for the purpose of mining. The pools run the full nodes for mining instead, that is why miners are not effected by the increased difficulty of running a full node, because miners do not run full nodes for the purpose of mining. This is why increasing the blocksize does not lead to increased mining centralization.

The pool operators have no choice but to include their running costs as a part of their fees. That means that the full costs of expanding network resource requirements are still referred to pool users, just indirectly. You're clearly not competent to assess this sort of thing, despite inviting people to read countless paragraphs of your "factual observations".

In the case of the pools, the running costs would be no more then say 100 full nodes for all of the pools combined, this number would include backup nodes as well. I am sure you can come to understand that running such a small number of full nodes is completely negligible in terms of the running costs of mining operations globally.

[sidhujag]

Regarding bitcoin not being a settlement system, there is a reason why Satoshi did have 10 minute blocks and I wouldn't want to second guess his motives. If it were designed to be a real-time processing system it would have been designed differently, see Bitshares for an example of using a consensus algorithm that allows for real-time processing with faster block times.

I accept zero confirmation transactions at my brick and mortar store and it works perfectly, people can also use payment processors for instant transactions as well of course. Satoshi did most definitely support larger blocks, and in regards to you saying he envisioned Bitcoin to be a settlement network and not a payment system, I do not think that is the case after all why would the title of the whitepaper be A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System. I think that Bitcoin is both a payment system and a settlement network and much more, we should not restrict its use if we have no good reason to do so. Bitcoin is both a commodity and a currency just like the gold and silver coins of ancient times.

mtgox would not agree with you about zero confirmation transactions. I think your thinking is flawed, those transactions you accept with 0 confirms are not secure and thus it does not work "perfectly" because there is a chance you will get screwed tending to infinity over time.

Yes bitcoin was DESIGNED to be a settlement system, he chose security over performance for very good reason. Decentralization is what we are after at the cost of fast confirms. LN can handle micro tx's for you.

Anything that can cause centralization should be avoided, however we should solve the root cause of the problem. If we can solve mining centralization a different way while having bigger blocks thats ok too.. but bigger blocks also causes more spam and decreases efficiency. Maybe we can come up with antispam detection to avoid that too, but with smaller fees at the cost of more spam and larger latency to propagate block through the p2p network? Im not sure at this point of time.

[muyuu]

Competing with cash at brick and mortar stores is deep at the latest of the diminishing returns zone. Bitcoin is far from adequate under current tech in so, so many respects. Choosing to go directly for that market is unfeasible and basically a crazy idea.

[VeritasSapere]

I accept zero confirmation transactions at my brick and mortar store and it works perfectly, people can also use payment processors for instant transactions as well of course.

...until it doesn't. While it may be workable for some businesses, it's certainly not safe and will never be. In your case, you're just agreeing to swallow losses in case of an easily executed double-spend.

This is true but because they are small purchases it works out alright, however for larger purchases I would recommend that everyone should wait for at least a few confirmations. lol

[VeritasSapere]

Competing with cash at brick and mortar stores is deep at the latest of the diminishing returns zone. Bitcoin is far from adequate under current tech in so, so many respects. Choosing to go directly for that market is unfeasible and basically a crazy idea.

I am ideologically motivated to use Bitcoin for as much as I can so it being a crazy idea is a fair enough criticism. lol

[brg444]

Wouldnt solving the miner anonymity and latency of propagating blocks solve this issue and we can all agree not to increase block size if we understand that bitcoin block mining is a settlement process rather than a real-time payment processor?

Aslong as majority of miner's aren't subjected to regulation (because they are anonymous) and the anonymity doesn't introduce extra lag or that we find a more efficient way to propagate blocks then I think XT will become redundant no? What am I missing here?

Is it about fees? but increasing blocksize will introduce more spam which makes the entire system less efficient?

The concerns are two fold (ranked from my own opinion):

1. Raising cost of entry to become a network peer (running a full node)

2. Mining centralization.

1. Isn't efficiency in storage capacity and bandwidth overcoming the demand for it with our current block structure? With bigger blocks perhaps demand capacity and bandwidth will be higher, but the tradeoff is less fees correct? If so then I'd like to know based on an assumption on the entire world running on bitcoin that what the percentage of success of having a transaction get included in a block with current limits such that it is set with 0 fees. (IMO having it completed within 5 days is not bad, which competes with overseas transfer times today.)

Storage might not be a concern, then again consider this:

The first 170k blocks took 1 Gb. The next 170k blocks took 35Gb. If the next 170k blocks take 1.25 Tb then the only certain matter is that no ordinary individual will be participating to direct, on the blockchain transactions by 2020. Simply because he won't be able to store the - hold your breath why don't you - 1.25 * 35 (6 * 365 * 24 * 6 / 170000) = 914 Terabytes required by then.

As for bandwidth, here lies the obvious bottleneck. Efficiency might be on a growing pace in New York, LA, Austin or wherever you are from but consider that in reality, cheap 100mb/s connections are available only to a minority of the citizens of the little pale blue dot.

Moreover, internet infrastructure is subject to geo-political and socio-economic instabilities as is clearly observed in countries like China.

Under a certain block size it would become impossible for a peer to run under existing anonymous internet access infrastructure (Tor, etc.) Given my previous comment this eventuality is not desirable and should be avoided so as to protect everyone's potential interests and monetary sovereignty.

2. With bigger blocks miners have no choice but to read headers off of each other to try to be profitable, and even bigger blocks will cause more centralization correct? However what if the value of bitcoin rises? Perhaps bigger blocks can be afforded if bitcoin was of sufficient value to follow the difficulty curve.. and in lean times those that do not believe in its long term potential can give up and be replaced with ones that do (those that aren't doing it strictly for business, converting to fiat). I don't find this issue as important as the need to have miners anonymous as regulation can really cripple the network if miners can be physically identified. By adding anonymity this includes latency in the system that will encourage centralization just like bigger blocks would do, but bigger blocks is not really the largest issue here in regards to centralization of miners.

If you understand that miners need the option to be anonymous then it should be evident that unconstrained growth of the block size undermines this goal.

[coalitionfor8mb]

Wouldnt solving the miner anonymity and latency of propagating blocks solve this issue and we can all agree not to increase block size if we understand that bitcoin block mining is a settlement process rather than a real-time payment processor?

Aslong as majority of miner's aren't subjected to regulation (because they are anonymous) and the anonymity doesn't introduce extra lag or that we find a more efficient way to propagate blocks then I think XT will become redundant no? What am I missing here?

Is it about fees? but increasing blocksize will introduce more spam which makes the entire system less efficient?

The concerns are two fold (ranked from my own opinion):

1. Raising cost of entry to become a network peer (running a full node)

2. Mining centralization.

1. Isn't efficiency in storage capacity and bandwidth overcoming the demand for it with our current block structure? With bigger blocks perhaps demand capacity and bandwidth will be higher, but the tradeoff is less fees correct?

The key characteristic here is the ability to keep Bitcoin within the range of technology accessible by majority of Bitcoin users. If Bitcoin demonstrates that its demand for block-space outgrows the capabilities of present day home networks, it may turn into a trend that will be very hard to stop especially if the network loses most of its validating full nodes in the process of such expansion.

The limit on block size is supposed to serve as a "brake" and help reverse this trend backwards for a period of time, so that in the long run the costs of validation oscillate within a certain corridor instead of steadily growing. We can think of it as cycles in nature, where the periods of almost empty blocks (perceived as "large") are followed by the periods of almost full blocks (perceived as "small"), pretty much the same way seasons alternate throughout a year.

[brg444]

Increasing the block size does not lead to increased mining centralization.

Interesting. Do you have any proof for this conjecture?

I have explained it in more detail here in the article that I written on the subject:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1164464.0

It is not conjecture since my theories are based on the factual observations of how the Bitcoin network functions today. To simplify the argument for you however it is based on the fact that the vast majority of miners do not run full nodes for the purpose of mining. The pools run the full nodes for mining instead, that is why miners are not effected by the increased difficulty of running a full node, because miners do not run full nodes for the purpose of mining. This is why increasing the blocksize does not lead to increased mining centralization.

Not sure I get it. Either way, miners, be it pools or solo miners, have to run full nodes (if they are actually doing their job properly). The centralization pressure here mainly comes not from validation costs, but from propagation costs. And a lot here depends on the network topology (e.g. The Great Firewall), i.e. the limiting factor is latency, not bandwidth. It's been discussed many times here.

Try and understand what I am saying here, it is a very important distinction. If you have read my article you will know I have made the comparison to pools acting like a type of representative democracy for miners within a free market. There are no real solo miners in Bitcoin anymore, to be a solo miner it requires an industrial scale operation to counter the variance and even then the pools are still used instead, even if it is a private pool. I am a miner and I am not running a full node, I point my hashing power towards slush and they run the full node for me instead. This is how the vast majority of mining power operates today and this is the reality of Bitcoin mining today and it does work. In the case of the Chinese miners, they could point their hashing power towards a pool outside of china, or Chinese pools can be setup outside of china as well if that specifically became a problem for them.

Solo miners are an integral part of Bitcoin and a growing share of the mining ecosystem. Aren't you ashamed of freely expressing such deception?

You are not a miner. You are simply selling your hashing power to one in return for rewards.

Once again, Chinese pools already use a network of nodes located outside of China to propagate their blocks (Relay Network), care to provide explanation as to why they still bother with SPV mining?

[sidhujag]

Wouldnt solving the miner anonymity and latency of propagating blocks solve this issue and we can all agree not to increase block size if we understand that bitcoin block mining is a settlement process rather than a real-time payment processor?

Aslong as majority of miner's aren't subjected to regulation (because they are anonymous) and the anonymity doesn't introduce extra lag or that we find a more efficient way to propagate blocks then I think XT will become redundant no? What am I missing here?

Is it about fees? but increasing blocksize will introduce more spam which makes the entire system less efficient?

The concerns are two fold (ranked from my own opinion):

1. Raising cost of entry to become a network peer (running a full node)

2. Mining centralization.

1. Isn't efficiency in storage capacity and bandwidth overcoming the demand for it with our current block structure? With bigger blocks perhaps demand capacity and bandwidth will be higher, but the tradeoff is less fees correct? If so then I'd like to know based on an assumption on the entire world running on bitcoin that what the percentage of success of having a transaction get included in a block with current limits such that it is set with 0 fees. (IMO having it completed within 5 days is not bad, which competes with overseas transfer times today.)

Storage might not be a concern, then again consider this:

The first 170k blocks took 1 Gb. The next 170k blocks took 35Gb. If the next 170k blocks take 1.25 Tb then the only certain matter is that no ordinary individual will be participating to direct, on the blockchain transactions by 2020. Simply because he won't be able to store the - hold your breath why don't you - 1.25 * 35 (6 * 365 * 24 * 6 / 170000) = 914 Terabytes required by then.

As for bandwidth, here lies the obvious bottleneck. Efficiency might be on a growing pace in New York, LA, Austin or wherever you are from but consider that in reality, cheap 100mb/s connections are available only to a minority of the citizens of the little pale blue dot.

Moreover, internet infrastructure is subject to geo-political and socio-economic instabilities as is clearly observed in countries like China.

To conclude, under a certain block size it would become impossible for a peer to run under existing anonymous internet access infrastructure (Tor, etc.) Given my previous comment this eventuality is not desirable and should be avoided so as to protect everyone's potential interests and monetary sovereignty.

2. With bigger blocks miners have no choice but to read headers off of each other to try to be profitable, and even bigger blocks will cause more centralization correct? However what if the value of bitcoin rises? Perhaps bigger blocks can be afforded if bitcoin was of sufficient value to follow the difficulty curve.. and in lean times those that do not believe in its long term potential can give up and be replaced with ones that do (those that aren't doing it strictly for business, converting to fiat). I don't find this issue as important as the need to have miners anonymous as regulation can really cripple the network if miners can be physically identified. By adding anonymity this includes latency in the system that will encourage centralization just like bigger blocks would do, but bigger blocks is not really the largest issue here in regards to centralization of miners.

If you understand that miners need the option to be anonymous then it should be evident that unconstrained growth of the block size undermines this goal.

We are saying the same thing except that you conclude anonymity of miners is not possible with growth of block sizes, and that I am saying we need to fully understand this and see if there technological challenges of the increased latency can be overcome.