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

[brg444]

Yes about BIP and its very dangerous 75% "supermajority":

5. Summary
As it stands, the BIP101 has implementation flaws that could cause BIP101 activation with a significantly sub-supermajority, or (in the presence of fake BIP101 voters) a minority. It is almost certain that if BIP101 is activated, it will be with a sub-supermajority, or even a minority.

http://organofcorti.blogspot.ca/2015/08/bip101-implementation-flaws.html

This blog post shows that the probability that BIP101 gets activated and it does not become the longest chain (due to variance) is less likely than the network hash power finding a SHA256 collision:

*zip*

Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3ilwq1/bip101_implementation_flaws/

This post shows the probability that BIP101 becomes the longest chain is 0:

"We believe a substantial part of full nodes right now would not be able to support blocks of this size simply because of hardware limitations. Similarly, we do not support propositions to fork client software as we believe this move may have potential negative consequences for the entire bitcoin ecosystem. - Valery Vavilov BitFury

Unlike your opinion, hardware evolves you know  

I'm sure you are qualified to speak hardware with the folks at BitFury. I suggest you go ahead and write them an email and try to change their mind. Until then...

#REKT

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

I'm sure you are qualified to speak hardware with the folks at BitFury. I suggest you go ahead and write them an email and try to change their mind. Until then...

#REKT

Your posts, as a collection, amount to a veritable orgy of the dunning-kruger effect.   Good work. 

[brg444]

^ you're on ignore btw

[DooMAD]

^ you're on ignore btw

And I'll be putting you on ignore along with all the greedy elitist-chain parasites quoted here once larger blocks are implemented and your agenda becomes a lost cause.  I'd block you now, but in order to call out the BS, I need to be able to see it. 

[madjules007]

Unlike your opinion, hardware evolves you know  

That's very cute, but it's not an adequate response. Firstly, yes, hardware evolves. At what rate over time, and when does the exponential trend end? We don't know. Moore's Law is an unscientific observation -- a theory -- and one that is breaking down: http://thenextweb.com/insider/2015/07/16/intel-quietly-admits-that-its-struggling-with-moores-law/

Further, if block size capacity is inadequate, it is linked to growth in transaction volume and thus, network adoption. Why is this [unproven, unscientific] theory regarding growth in processor capacity being used as a basis for predicting bitcoin adoption? It's already quite a leap to say that growth rates in processing capacity are uniformly applicable to all technologies.....But then to try to take it much further even, and apply that logic to a network of people? Very basic logical failures.

Those who act like we can plan for all contingencies today in regards to hardware and bandwidth advancements, network security in the case of exponentially increasing block size, any the many problems that will come along whether we have thought of them or not are fooling themselves. It seems many fancy themselves visionaries around here -- but I don't see the foresight to warrant it.

[brg444]

^ you're on ignore btw

And I'll be putting you on ignore along with all the greedy elitist-chain parasites quoted here once larger blocks are implemented and your agenda becomes a lost cause.  I'd block you now, but in order to call out the BS, I need to be able to see it.  

well damn I couldn't ask for more than to be enshrined alongside such Bitcoin visionaries. go right ahead !

[onemorexmr]

Unlike your opinion, hardware evolves you know  

That's very cute, but it's not an adequate response. Firstly, yes, hardware evolves. At what rate over time, and when does the exponential trend end? We don't know. Moore's Law is an unscientific observation -- a theory -- and one that is breaking down: http://thenextweb.com/insider/2015/07/16/intel-quietly-admits-that-its-struggling-with-moores-law/

Further, if block size capacity is inadequate, it is linked to growth in transaction volume and thus, network adoption. Why is this [unproven, unscientific] theory regarding growth in processor capacity being used as a basis for predicting bitcoin adoption? It's already quite a leap to say that growth rates in processing capacity are uniformly applicable to all technologies.....But then to try to take it much further even, and apply that logic to a network of people? Very basic logical failures.

Those who act like we can plan for all contingencies today in regards to hardware and bandwidth advancements, network security in the case of exponentially increasing block size, any the many problems that will come along whether we have thought of them or not are fooling themselves. It seems many fancy themselves visionaries around here -- but I don't see the foresight to warrant it.

if we would have 8GB blocks right now you can have that:

 - run your own node on a server (eg hetzner 50€/month+300€ traffic)
 - run electrum-server there
 - use electrum from home to connect there

which basically means it is possible RIGHT NOW.
eg even if you think that bandwith doesnt change for the next years at all bitcoin would still be usable.

ofc not anybody could afford 350€/monthly. but they might just use spv clients

[brg444]

Unlike your opinion, hardware evolves you know  

That's very cute, but it's not an adequate response. Firstly, yes, hardware evolves. At what rate over time, and when does the exponential trend end? We don't know. Moore's Law is an unscientific observation -- a theory -- and one that is breaking down: http://thenextweb.com/insider/2015/07/16/intel-quietly-admits-that-its-struggling-with-moores-law/

Further, if block size capacity is inadequate, it is linked to growth in transaction volume and thus, network adoption. Why is this [unproven, unscientific] theory regarding growth in processor capacity being used as a basis for predicting bitcoin adoption? It's already quite a leap to say that growth rates in processing capacity are uniformly applicable to all technologies.....But then to try to take it much further even, and apply that logic to a network of people? Very basic logical failures.

Those who act like we can plan for all contingencies today in regards to hardware and bandwidth advancements, network security in the case of exponentially increasing block size, any the many problems that will come along whether we have thought of them or not are fooling themselves. It seems many fancy themselves visionaries around here -- but I don't see the foresight to warrant it.

if we would have 8GB blocks right now you can have that:

 - run your own node on a server (eg hetzner 50€/month+300€ traffic)
 - run electrum-server there
 - use electrum from home to connect there

which basically means it is possible RIGHT NOW.
eg even if you think that bandwith doesnt change for the next years at all bitcoin would still be usable.

ofc not anybody could afford 350€/monthly. but they might just use spv clients

Are you sure about this? Do you have tests to prove it?

http://log.bitcoin-assets.com/?date=19-08-2015#1244354

[madjules007]

Unlike your opinion, hardware evolves you know  

That's very cute, but it's not an adequate response. Firstly, yes, hardware evolves. At what rate over time, and when does the exponential trend end? We don't know. Moore's Law is an unscientific observation -- a theory -- and one that is breaking down: http://thenextweb.com/insider/2015/07/16/intel-quietly-admits-that-its-struggling-with-moores-law/

Further, if block size capacity is inadequate, it is linked to growth in transaction volume and thus, network adoption. Why is this [unproven, unscientific] theory regarding growth in processor capacity being used as a basis for predicting bitcoin adoption? It's already quite a leap to say that growth rates in processing capacity are uniformly applicable to all technologies.....But then to try to take it much further even, and apply that logic to a network of people? Very basic logical failures.

Those who act like we can plan for all contingencies today in regards to hardware and bandwidth advancements, network security in the case of exponentially increasing block size, any the many problems that will come along whether we have thought of them or not are fooling themselves. It seems many fancy themselves visionaries around here -- but I don't see the foresight to warrant it.

if we would have 8GB blocks right now you can have that:

 - run your own node on a server (eg hetzner 50€/month+300€ traffic)
 - run electrum-server there
 - use electrum from home to connect there

which basically means it is possible RIGHT NOW.
eg even if you think that bandwith doesnt change for the next years at all bitcoin would still be usable.

ofc not anybody could afford 350€/monthly. but they might just use spv clients

You're missing the point. What in heaven's name justifies implementing 8GB blocks? By your logic, we can just have 64GB blocks and even more prohibitive costs to running nodes. After all, who cares, right?

Certainly, current transaction volume doesn't suggest this is necessary at all. Why aim for Moore's Law? Let's observe how robust scalability is on a more conservative basis, and keep limit increases in line with actual transaction growth (rather than this fantasy that Moore's Law = bitcoin adoption rising exponentially, endlessly).

[onemorexmr]

Unlike your opinion, hardware evolves you know  

That's very cute, but it's not an adequate response. Firstly, yes, hardware evolves. At what rate over time, and when does the exponential trend end? We don't know. Moore's Law is an unscientific observation -- a theory -- and one that is breaking down: http://thenextweb.com/insider/2015/07/16/intel-quietly-admits-that-its-struggling-with-moores-law/

Further, if block size capacity is inadequate, it is linked to growth in transaction volume and thus, network adoption. Why is this [unproven, unscientific] theory regarding growth in processor capacity being used as a basis for predicting bitcoin adoption? It's already quite a leap to say that growth rates in processing capacity are uniformly applicable to all technologies.....But then to try to take it much further even, and apply that logic to a network of people? Very basic logical failures.

Those who act like we can plan for all contingencies today in regards to hardware and bandwidth advancements, network security in the case of exponentially increasing block size, any the many problems that will come along whether we have thought of them or not are fooling themselves. It seems many fancy themselves visionaries around here -- but I don't see the foresight to warrant it.

if we would have 8GB blocks right now you can have that:

 - run your own node on a server (eg hetzner 50€/month+300€ traffic)
 - run electrum-server there
 - use electrum from home to connect there

which basically means it is possible RIGHT NOW.
eg even if you think that bandwith doesnt change for the next years at all bitcoin would still be usable.

ofc not anybody could afford 350€/monthly. but they might just use spv clients

Are you sure about this? Do you have tests to prove it?

http://log.bitcoin-assets.com/?date=19-08-2015#1244354

home pc? use a spv-wallet at home as it was intended by satoshi (you may ofc use your own server which runs a full node to connect to)

and i am not interested in bitcoin-assets.com. bitcoin is for the masses and not for this crazy mpex sect

(to be honest: full 8gb blocks would be a real problem now. but possible from a technical standpoint? yes only very expensive [hey thats something MP would like... expensive bitcoin ])

[onemorexmr]

You're missing the point. What in heaven's name justifies implementing 8GB blocks? By your logic, we can just have 64GB blocks and even more prohibitive costs to running nodes. After all, who cares, right?

Certainly, current transaction volume doesn't suggest this is necessary at all. Why aim for Moore's Law? Let's observe how robust scalability is on a more conservative basis, and keep limit increases in line with actual transaction growth (rather than this fantasy that Moore's Law = bitcoin adoption rising exponentially, endlessly).

i am not suggesting going to 8gb blocks now...
8mb and doubling every two years as with a lower soft-limit is good...

[brg444]

You're missing the point. What in heaven's name justifies implementing 8GB blocks? By your logic, we can just have 64GB blocks and even more prohibitive costs to running nodes. After all, who cares, right?

Certainly, current transaction volume doesn't suggest this is necessary at all. Why aim for Moore's Law? Let's observe how robust scalability is on a more conservative basis, and keep limit increases in line with actual transaction growth (rather than this fantasy that Moore's Law = bitcoin adoption rising exponentially, endlessly).

i am not suggesting going to 8gb blocks now...
8mb and doubling every two years as with a lower soft-limit is good...

Maybe you can address this?

The issue with a large increase is it creates a slippery slope. Raising the blocksizing is essentially subsidizing transactions. If we persist on doing that someone WILL take advantage of the free space. Now what happens if 8MB blocks get filled up way before the intended increase? It is not an improbable scenario that we could see bigger block get filled surprisingly quickly & the increase will have been more or less for nothing.

If we take the decision to continue subsidizing transactions right now because of pressure from certain groups we will inevitably create a precedent and reinforce the belief of users that they somehow have a RIGHT for block space and therefore make it forever more difficult to refuse it. Imagine the subsequent pressure if Bitcoin grows by a couple orders of magnitude and users start seeing their transaction fees go up when they were told it would forever be nearly free.

This here is an opportunity to put a check on these false expectations and discourage business plans that were planning to unnecessarily fill up the blocks w/ their own transactions. People need to understand that there is cost to having this system run securely and we should stop trying to externalize them.

[onemorexmr]

The issue with a large increase is it creates a slippery slope. Raising the blocksizing is essentially subsidizing transactions. If we persist on doing that someone WILL take advantage of the free space. Now what happens if 8MB blocks get filled up way before the intended increase? It is not an improbable scenario that we could see bigger block get filled surprisingly quickly & the increase will have been more or less for nothing.

miners have an incentive to make smaller blocks as they are transmitted faster and reduce their orphan rate. so they wont include no-fee-transactions forever.

as blockreward gets reduced miners are forced to calculate their cost per transaction (cpu and bandwith wise) they wont allow freebies.

If we take the decision to continue subsidizing transactions right now because of pressure from certain groups we will inevitably create a precedent and reinforce the belief of users that they somehow have a RIGHT for block space and therefore make it forever more difficult to refuse it. Imagine the subsequent pressure if Bitcoin grows by a couple orders of magnitude and users start seeing their transaction fees go up when they were told it would forever be nearly free.

its the miners decision what can be in a block and what not.
they have the "right" to decide this; no one else.

so i say: let them also decide how big blocks can be (the 8mb block+increase above is just my personal opinion. i will follow miners decision and keep all fork coins to see what happens)

This here is an opportunity to put a check on these false expectations and discourage business plans that were planning to unnecessarily fill up the blocks w/ their own transactions. People need to understand that there is cost to having this system run securely and we should stop trying to externalize them.

again: its foremost the cost for miners.
anybody else can use a spv client or (if he wants to be more secure) has to pay.

it boils down to: i dont think miners are dumb.
i know that many people thinks that all miners will put all transactions (even with only one satoshi fee) in a block if there is the space. i dont...i think they are able to calculate their costs.

btw a while ago i made a proposal which would reduce blockreward in case a block gets bigger than 1mb. the reduced amount (per transaction) would get to node which relayed the transaction. gavin didnt like it

[johnyj]

The question is: Why change at all when it works?

The stress test weeks ago already showed that even every block is full, the network still works well, since most of the people are long term holder and are not time sensitive. Of course there will be a time when even 0.001 BTC fee can not get you a confirmation in 10 minutes, but we are far from reaching that yet

Have you tried to make a transactions during that stress test? Mines got back logged 1-2h before getting a confirmation with standard fee. Increasing the fees doesn't adds up capacity btw.  

I have multiple things running and I did not feel any difference during that stress test. My mining rigs still ran, my node's mempool grew too large so I added a "minrelaytxfee=0.0001" line to get it back to normal. I constantly deposit and withdraw coins from other exchanges and online wallets and did not experienced any delay. So I guess only a few of nodes were impacted in case they did not set the corresponding anti-spam configuration

What could cause difficulty is that a large institution like bank trying to push in 0.01BTC fee for each transaction, and broadcast 2000 transactions per block, thus anyone paying less than 0.01BTC fee will not get a chance to be broadcasted. But that will cost over 17 million dollar per month for a bank to do that at current exchange rate. The block reward from fee will become 20 bitcoin, and it would still not stop any transactions larger than 1 BTC, since 0.01 BTC fee is just 1% fee for a 1 BTC transaction

[madjules007]

You're missing the point. What in heaven's name justifies implementing 8GB blocks? By your logic, we can just have 64GB blocks and even more prohibitive costs to running nodes. After all, who cares, right?

Certainly, current transaction volume doesn't suggest this is necessary at all. Why aim for Moore's Law? Let's observe how robust scalability is on a more conservative basis, and keep limit increases in line with actual transaction growth (rather than this fantasy that Moore's Law = bitcoin adoption rising exponentially, endlessly).

i am not suggesting going to 8gb blocks now...
8mb and doubling every two years as with a lower soft-limit is good...

Good, why? I haven't seen this adequately explained. Considering we are not even reaching capacity at 1MB, 8MB is completely arbitrary. 8GB is beyond arbitrary -- it's simply out of touch with reality. The only possible justification is Moore's Law, and as I pointed out above, this is an illogical and unscientific basis to go by.

[onemorexmr]

Good, why? I haven't seen this adequately explained. Considering we are not even reaching capacity at 1MB, 8MB is completely arbitrary. 8GB is beyond arbitrary -- it's simply out of touch with reality. The only possible justification is Moore's Law, and as I pointed out above, this is an illogical and unscientific basis to go by.

i dont think it is needed to proof whats the best minimum. imho we need to show what is a good possible max.

no one can see in the future. this means we cant know how much blocksize we will need. but we can make educated guesses about what might be a good max. and if we are wrong with that maximum lets just have a little trust in miners which dont want to let bitcoin fail to choose some reasonable value.

yes 8mb is arbitary. but why is this a problem? it is not possible to calculate the future (at least for now and not from inside our universe). what transactions are put in a block and which arent is a decision made by people who have the incentive to keep this system running.

[brg444]

The issue with a large increase is it creates a slippery slope. Raising the blocksizing is essentially subsidizing transactions. If we persist on doing that someone WILL take advantage of the free space. Now what happens if 8MB blocks get filled up way before the intended increase? It is not an improbable scenario that we could see bigger block get filled surprisingly quickly & the increase will have been more or less for nothing.

miners have an incentive to make smaller blocks as they are transmitted faster and reduce their orphan rate. so they wont include no-fee-transactions forever.

as blockreward gets reduced miners are forced to calculate their cost per transaction (cpu and bandwith wise) they wont allow freebies.

It seems to me you are making two assumptions that do not appear necessarily true to me.

The first is that propagation times are not subject to change (improve). What happens when IBLT is implemented and propagation is constant? There are a handful of other improvements that can decrease propagation time and it WILL get worst as big miners improve connectivity between each other. The incentive to mine smaller blocks then kind of disappears and so does the cost to publish larger blocks to a certain extent.

Second is a most common fallacy that suggest all miners are the same, that their decisions can be projected as a group and not as individuals. That is absolutely wrong. Cost per transactions differ from one miner to the others and bigger miners will have incentive to mine bigger blocks and eventually suffocate smaller miners who cannot keep up with their resources.

[onemorexmr]

It seems to me you are making two assumptions that do not appear necessarily true to me.

The first is that propagation times are not subject to change (improve). What happens when IBLT is implemented and propagation is constant? There are a handful of other improvements that can decrease propagation time and it WILL get worst as big miners improve connectivity between each other. The incentive to mine smaller blocks then kind of disappears and so does the cost to publish larger blocks to a certain extent.

true, also the (existing) miners-overlay-network which is used by most pools already submit headers first.

 - still, miners have to validate transactions
 - they have to receive it (ok its hard to not receive something)
 - they know that if they allow small fee transactions they'll get more small-fee transactions in the future. this seems to be a prisoners dilemma while its not: they rely on bitcoin to continue to exist, because they are invested in it and no company would destroy their own market.

Second is a most common fallacy that suggest all miners are the same, that their decisions can be projected as a group and not as individuals. That is absolutely wrong. Cost per transactions differ from one miner to the others and bigger miners will have incentive to mine bigger blocks and eventually suffocate smaller miners who cannot keep up with their resources.

yes and thats bad. but i dont think this has much to do with blocksizes. atm most mining is done in china for this exact reason: this wont change with bigger blocks.

imho: in the long run bitcoin can only stay decentralized when many households have a miner at home. eg an electric heating device (preferably solo with a bitcoin node integrated in any router; bandwidth subsidized by telco like many do with their video-platforms [at least in germany]).

we just need devices which mine as a by-product.

[brg444]

It seems to me you are making two assumptions that do not appear necessarily true to me.

The first is that propagation times are not subject to change (improve). What happens when IBLT is implemented and propagation is constant? There are a handful of other improvements that can decrease propagation time and it WILL get worst as big miners improve connectivity between each other. The incentive to mine smaller blocks then kind of disappears and so does the cost to publish larger blocks to a certain extent.

true, also the (existing) miners-overlay-network which is used by most pools already submit headers first.

 - still, miners have to validate transactions
 - they have to receive it (ok its hard to not receive something)
 - they know that if they allow small fee transactions they'll get more small-fee transactions in the future. this seems to be a prisoners dilemma while its not: they rely on bitcoin to continue to exist, because they are invested in it and no company would destroy their own market.

Second is a most common fallacy that suggest all miners are the same, that their decisions can be projected as a group and not as individuals. That is absolutely wrong. Cost per transactions differ from one miner to the others and bigger miners will have incentive to mine bigger blocks and eventually suffocate smaller miners who cannot keep up with their resources.

yes and thats bad. but i dont think this has much to do with blocksizes. atm most mining is done in china for this exact reason: this wont change with bigger blocks.

imho: in the long run bitcoin can only stay decentralized when many households have a miner at home. eg an electric heating device (preferably solo with a bitcoin node integrated in any router; bandwidth subsidized by telco like many do with their video-platforms [at least in germany]).

we just need devices which mine as a by-product.

But of course it has to do with blocksize.

Blocksize is a check on economies of scale so as to level the playing ground. It is absolutely necessary while Bitcoin is still relatively small. Without it the entities with the most resources will make use of the technology available to run out of the market any smaller players.

What you are proposing is indeed interesting but we can absolutely not make decisions based on such abstract potential.

[onemorexmr]

But of course it has to do with blocksize.

Blocksize is a check on economies of scale so as to level the playing ground. It is absolutely necessary while Bitcoin is still relatively small. Without it the entities with the most resources will make use of the technology available to run out of the market any smaller players.

that is only true if the entity with the most resources has more than 51%.
otherwise i expect smaller players to team up in such cases and ignore blocks as soon as a big player start to behave badly.

it is in their best interest to do that.

we can see this with: most home miners go to the biggest pool like flies going to the brightest light. but - until now - whenever a pool got to much hashing power the community realized that it is bad and hashing power got more distributed again.

edit: imho: in the long run bitcoin can only stay decentralized when many households have a miner at home. eg an electric heating device