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

[Cconvert2G36]

4MB blocks going towards 2020 seems like it's leaning towards protecting decentralization vs growth at all costs. And it's a number I bet most BIP101 fans would find absurdly small. As polarized as this debate has been, I think the winning proposal should be the one that equalizes displeasure between the XT-Unlimited and 1MB4EVA camps. Doubling max block size in tandem with halvings mimics and compliments the simplicity and predictability of the reward schedule.  

This dose nothing to alleviate the genuine concerns of Luke Jr, and other Bitcoin Engineers that have good evidence and reason to believe that the 750kb blocks that we have now are already hitting the block size scaling limits that the network can safely manage.

People who propose such large blocks, such as 2mb or 4mb, never seem to address the concerns that the Bitcoin Network is *already* struggling under present loads.

I probably don't need to remind you that max != actual, just like today. If luke doesn't have better internet in 2019 he'll have some splainin' to do.

Except we all know that it is the same charlatans that have been pressuring the miners to include more transactions and create max-block-size blocks on average. - Who are also pressuring to increase the same max-block-size limit.

So the argument about max-size vs actual-size is a bit of a moot-point, really.

Bigger blocks (with at least some reasonable upper bound) make spam attacks more expensive, as tx's drop out of the mempool and fees can be recycled continuously. The point is not moot, because as we see now, even when the incentive to bloat blocks does exist, we aren't seeing it. This change would make it a more expensive proposition for the potential spammer. 

[gmaxwell]

Bigger blocks (with at least some reasonable upper bound) make spam attacks more expensive, as tx's drop out of the mempool and fees can be recycled continuously.

Not so much, in that the fee required to get into the mempool in the first place goes up as transactions are dropped out; at least with the limited mempool in 0.12.  To the extent that a bigger block makes spam attacks more expensive it's only really through the action of making it much cheaper to inflict additional storage-in-perpetuity on the network. So far, the non-trivially funded spam attacks that we've seen have not been successful in driving the feel levels required to bypass them above negligible cents per transaction levels (e.g. significantly cheaper than what credit card networks charge merchants per transaction).... though obviously this has limits.

Right now, measuring the differential time it takes for mining pools to switch the blocks they're working on vs block size suggests an effective transfer rate of 723kbit/sec (less shockingly slow when you consider how inefficient TCP is for bursty conditions across links with worldwide latency), This is the amount of time it took for a block to reach half the monitored public pool's stratum endpoints after reaching the first one vs blocksize:  https://people.xiph.org/~greg/sp2.png  (Matt more recently did a similar measurement of relay network behavior and reached a similar but somewhat lower throughput).   If you take that offset (2.491s) and data rate, and drop it into formula for subsidy income loss cost for the last byte of a megabyte block, the break-even feerate is 0.00045054 BTC/KB. So that suggests that at least lower hashrate miners are accepting transactions at a price low enough to be a net-loss currently. (It may not be the case; e.g. if the low hashrate miners are all fast. and the high hashrate miners are all slow, or low hashrate doesn't process as many transactions; and the data is all over the map... etc.)

[Cconvert2G36]

Bigger blocks (with at least some reasonable upper bound) make spam attacks more expensive, as tx's drop out of the mempool and fees can be recycled continuously.

Not so much, in that the fee required to get into the mempool in the first place goes up as transactions are dropped out; at least with the limited mempool in 0.12.  To the extent that a bigger block makes spam attacks more expensive it's only really through the action of making it much cheaper to inflict additional storage-in-perpetuity on the network. So far, the non-trivially funded spam attacks that we've seen have not been successful in driving the feel levels required to bypass them above negligible cents per transaction levels (e.g. significantly cheaper than what credit card networks charge merchants per transaction).... though obviously this has limits.

Right now, measuring the differential time it takes for mining pools to switch the blocks they're working on vs block size suggests an effective transfer rate of 723kbit/sec (less shockingly slow when you consider how inefficient TCP is for bursty conditions across links with worldwide latency), This is the amount of time it took for a block to reach half the monitored public pool's stratum endpoints after reaching the first one vs blocksize:  https://people.xiph.org/~greg/sp2.png  (Matt more recently did a similar measurement of relay network behavior and reached a similar but somewhat lower throughput).   If you take that offset (2.491s) and data rate, and drop it into formula for subsidy income loss cost for the last byte of a megabyte block, the break-even feerate is 0.00045054 BTC/KB. So that suggests that at least lower hashrate miners are accepting transactions at a price low enough to be a net-loss currently. (It may not be the case; e.g. if the low hashrate miners are all fast. and the high hashrate miners are all slow, or low hashrate doesn't process as many transactions; and the data is all over the map... etc.)

Thanks for the response Greg. Looks like I have some reading to do wrt mempool changes. Any thoughts on Wang Chun's suggested schedule?

[hdbuck]

In practice, imagine the pain for newcomers to just download the whole 50Gb blockchain, and despite all the cherry picking and sterile dialectic about general bandwidth evolution.

People arguing for bigger blocks at such stage in bitcoin existence are either corporatist shills or braindead morons. (opinion ergo fact ^^)

[MbccompanyX]

In practice, imagine the pain for newcomers to just download the whole 50Gb blockchain, and despite all the cherry picking and sterile dialectic about general bandwidth evolution.

People arguing for bigger blocks at such stage in bitcoin existence are either corporatist shills or braindead morons. (opinion ergo fact ^^)

Well that one heck of a problem in fact.... everybody tries only to see the increase of size like if everybody already have the blockchain downloaded without thinking to who still doesn't have the wallet synced and have to download all that

[hdbuck]

In practice, imagine the pain for newcomers to just download the whole 50Gb blockchain, and despite all the cherry picking and sterile dialectic about general bandwidth evolution.

People arguing for bigger blocks at such stage in bitcoin existence are either corporatist shills or braindead morons. (opinion ergo fact ^^)

Well that one heck of a problem in fact.... everybody tries only to see the increase of size like if everybody already have the blockchain downloaded without thinking to who still doesn't have the wallet synced and have to download all that

Yup, "be your own bank" imply running a bitcoin client by yourself, so that you actually dont rely on third parties.

Else, as Nick Sza-toshi-bo highlighted:

 

[MbccompanyX]

In practice, imagine the pain for newcomers to just download the whole 50Gb blockchain, and despite all the cherry picking and sterile dialectic about general bandwidth evolution.

People arguing for bigger blocks at such stage in bitcoin existence are either corporatist shills or braindead morons. (opinion ergo fact ^^)

Well that one heck of a problem in fact.... everybody tries only to see the increase of size like if everybody already have the blockchain downloaded without thinking to who still doesn't have the wallet synced and have to download all that

Yup, "be your own bank" imply running a bitcoin client by yourself, so that you actually dont rely on third parties.

Else, as Nick Sza-toshi-bo highlighted:

 

A webpage of 2Mb? Did gavin smoked something? I can't even think of a normal HTML/PHP page that is of 2Mb..... And i agree with what Nick Sza-toshi-bo told, because at the end, is what is going to happen with the increased block size

[sickpig]

A webpage of 2Mb? Did gavin smoked something? I can't even think of a normal HTML/PHP page that is of 2Mb..... And i agree with what Nick Sza-toshi-bo told, because at the end, is what is going to happen with the increased block size

To answer your first question, you're right the average page is not 2MB, it is actually larger. 2099 KB to be precise.

http://www.soasta.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/page-bloat-feature.png

[Trent Russell]

Just in case some plan for a "reasonable" block size increase (not 101) will be agreed to after the HK workshop, I'd like to humbly make a suggestion.

I can imagine some of the pro-XT/pro-101 people will want to claim "victory." If so, please consider just letting them claim victory. They've had a tough year. They clearly thought they were the majority, and the lack of XT adoption is clear evidence that they're wrong about this. Maybe it would help heal the community to let them dance on the 1MB grave for a bit, even if they're not getting what they really want.

Just to be clear, if the experts honestly believe raising the block size limit is a bad idea, I hope they don't give in the for the sake of "bringing the community together." But if a compromise is reached, fine, let's try to be nice to the people who wanted something "unlimited."

[hdbuck]

A webpage of 2Mb? Did gavin smoked something? I can't even think of a normal HTML/PHP page that is of 2Mb..... And i agree with what Nick Sza-toshi-bo told, because at the end, is what is going to happen with the increased block size

To answer your first question, you're right the average page is not 2MB, it is actually larger. 2099 KB to be precise.

http://www.soasta.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/page-bloat-feature.png
http://www.soasta.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/page-bloat-feature.png

Heh, OTOH there are people that actually care to bring bitcoin (news) to the poor african children.

"It is a distinct point of pride that Qntra is ready to take Bitcoin news to the GPRS internet connection of Africa and the rest of the under served world."

[sickpig]

A webpage of 2Mb? Did gavin smoked something? I can't even think of a normal HTML/PHP page that is of 2Mb..... And i agree with what Nick Sza-toshi-bo told, because at the end, is what is going to happen with the increased block size

To answer your first question, you're right the average page is not 2MB, it is actually larger. 2099 KB to be precise.

http://www.soasta.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/page-bloat-feature.png

Heh, OTOH there are people that actually care to bring bitcoin (news) to the poor african children.

Nevertheless the average web page size still was 2099 KB in May 2015.

Last available measurement report that in November 2015 the average web page size increased to 2219 KB.
(source: http://httparchive.org/interesting.php?a=All&l=Nov%2015%202015)

edit: add emph

[hdbuck]

A webpage of 2Mb? Did gavin smoked something? I can't even think of a normal HTML/PHP page that is of 2Mb..... And i agree with what Nick Sza-toshi-bo told, because at the end, is what is going to happen with the increased block size

To answer your first question, you're right the average page is not 2MB, it is actually larger. 2099 KB to be precise.

http://www.soasta.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/page-bloat-feature.png

Heh, OTOH there are people that actually care to bring bitcoin (news) to the poor african children.

Nevertheless the average web page size still was 2099 KB in May 2015.

Last available measurement report that in November 2015 the average web page size increased to 2219 KB.
(source: http://httparchive.org/interesting.php?a=All&l=Nov%2015%202015)

www.qntra.net -> 35 Kb page

http://smallseotools.com/website-page-size-checker/

Power to GPRS!

[sickpig]

A webpage of 2Mb? Did gavin smoked something? I can't even think of a normal HTML/PHP page that is of 2Mb..... And i agree with what Nick Sza-toshi-bo told, because at the end, is what is going to happen with the increased block size

To answer your first question, you're right the average page is not 2MB, it is actually larger. 2099 KB to be precise.

http://www.soasta.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/page-bloat-feature.png

Heh, OTOH there are people that actually care to bring bitcoin (news) to the poor african children.

Nevertheless the average web page size still was 2099 KB in May 2015.

Last available measurement report that in November 2015 the average web page size increased to 2219 KB.
(source: http://httparchive.org/interesting.php?a=All&l=Nov%2015%202015)

www.qntra.net -> 35 Kb page

http://smallseotools.com/website-page-size-checker/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Average

[hdbuck]

A webpage of 2Mb? Did gavin smoked something? I can't even think of a normal HTML/PHP page that is of 2Mb..... And i agree with what Nick Sza-toshi-bo told, because at the end, is what is going to happen with the increased block size

To answer your first question, you're right the average page is not 2MB, it is actually larger. 2099 KB to be precise.

http://www.soasta.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/page-bloat-feature.png

Heh, OTOH there are people that actually care to bring bitcoin (news) to the poor african children.

Nevertheless the average web page size still was 2099 KB in May 2015.

Last available measurement report that in November 2015 the average web page size increased to 2219 KB.
(source: http://httparchive.org/interesting.php?a=All&l=Nov%2015%202015)

www.qntra.net -> 35 Kb page

http://smallseotools.com/website-page-size-checker/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Average

that was not my point, but whatever.

[iCEBREAKER]

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/bitcoin-mining-pool-f-pool-discus-fish-maintains-bip-not-an-option-1449003767

"Switching to BIP 101 or Bitcoin XT is a bad idea; we will never do that,” Chun reiterated his earlier position. “After a meeting with some other Chinese pools earlier this year, we proposed an 8-megabyte limit, because we thought Gavin's initial 20 megabyte proposal was too big for us. I always thought 2 megabytes would be better as a first step, but I did not want to offend Gavin with a 10 times smaller proposal. Gavin then answered us with BIP 101, which due to its steep growth curve is essentially 8 gigabytes, so it’s done. I don’t trust Gavin anymore – nor Hearn for that matter.”

XT rekt like Jeremy Corbyn 

[Lauda]

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/bitcoin-mining-pool-f-pool-discus-fish-maintains-bip-not-an-option-1449003767

"Switching to BIP 101 or Bitcoin XT is a bad idea; we will never do that,” Chun reiterated his earlier position. “After a meeting with some other Chinese pools earlier this year, we proposed an 8-megabyte limit, because we thought Gavin's initial 20 megabyte proposal was too big for us. I always thought 2 megabytes would be better as a first step, but I did not want to offend Gavin with a 10 times smaller proposal. Gavin then answered us with BIP 101, which due to its steep growth curve is essentially 8 gigabytes, so it’s done. I don’t trust Gavin anymore – nor Hearn for that matter.”

XT rekt like Jeremy Corbyn  

It looks like there are individuals that still haven't completely lost their minds. Any small increment right now is much better than taking huge leaps now, or in the future. I do wonder what the conference in Hong Kong is going to 'conclude'. It is definitely going to be worth watching, and a lot of things can be learned from such an event. However, I doubt that XT propaganda folk is going to watch/care because Mike is not there. Due to the fact that Mike is not there, they're going to reject any analysis of BIP101 and claim that the evidence was false and whatnot (I've already read it somewhere). Just wait for it. For those that do not know, Mike refused to come probably because he's ashamed of his XT failure.

[hdbuck]

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/bitcoin-mining-pool-f-pool-discus-fish-maintains-bip-not-an-option-1449003767

"Switching to BIP 101 or Bitcoin XT is a bad idea; we will never do that,” Chun reiterated his earlier position. “After a meeting with some other Chinese pools earlier this year, we proposed an 8-megabyte limit, because we thought Gavin's initial 20 megabyte proposal was too big for us. I always thought 2 megabytes would be better as a first step, but I did not want to offend Gavin with a 10 times smaller proposal. Gavin then answered us with BIP 101, which due to its steep growth curve is essentially 8 gigabytes, so it’s done. I don’t trust Gavin anymore – nor Hearn for that matter.”

XT rekt like Jeremy Corbyn  

It looks like there are individuals that still haven't completely lost their minds. Any small increment right now is much better than taking huge leaps now, or in the future. I do wonder what the conference in Hong Kong is going to 'conclude'. It is definitely going to be worth watching, and a lot of things can be learned from such an event. However, I doubt that XT propaganda folk is going to watch/care because Mike is not there. Due to the fact that Mike is not there, they're going to reject any analysis of BIP101 and claim that the evidence was false and whatnot (I've already read it somewhere). Just wait for it. For those that do not know, Mike refused to come probably because he's ashamed of his XT failure.

Also, Mike must be overbooked with R3 banking cartel projects!


Ps: the conference is about scaling bitcoin.

[Zarathustra]

We don't know, but (and I believe this to be the case) if the developers are not petulant children arguing on a forum such as this, then its likely that their discussion will revolve around finding the common ground in between opposing opinions. That would be a more interesting discussion to be having but all I see every day are polarised opinions (presented as fact). Exaggeration by both camps, hostility, refusal to move from entrenched positions and mischarecterisation of others views.

Maybe you're not looking hard enough?

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3uzwgs/scaling_bitcoin_2_in_just_5_days/

You're fooling yourself if you expect productive development to be held "on a forum such as this"

I notice alot of people using this forum as a platform to berate it. I also notice that alot of people are using this forum as a platform to advertise alternative forums.

Kind of an inconsistency between what these two groups are saying and what they're doing: Why do they keep coming back here if bitcointalk.org is held in such contempt?

Meh, if only they would stick with their VERified Kingdom. There surely must be as much freedom as idiocy there.

As ICEBREAkER aptly predicted let's just say they are having their their own freedom of speech problems  

https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3uyyfx/i_didnt_think_this_day_would_come_but_ive_been/

SPLITTER!!1

Yes, and some people (you and your friends from the Front National) like that censorship, while we don't.

[Zarathustra]

We don't know, but (and I believe this to be the case) if the developers are not petulant children arguing on a forum such as this, then its likely that their discussion will revolve around finding the common ground in between opposing opinions. That would be a more interesting discussion to be having but all I see every day are polarised opinions (presented as fact). Exaggeration by both camps, hostility, refusal to move from entrenched positions and mischarecterisation of others views.

Maybe you're not looking hard enough?

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3uzwgs/scaling_bitcoin_2_in_just_5_days/

You're fooling yourself if you expect productive development to be held "on a forum such as this"

I notice alot of people using this forum as a platform to berate it. I also notice that alot of people are using this forum as a platform to advertise alternative forums.

Kind of an inconsistency between what these two groups are saying and what they're doing: Why do they keep coming back here if bitcointalk.org is held in such contempt?

Meh, if only they would stick with their VERified Kingdom. There surely must be as much freedom as idiocy there.

As ICEBREAkER aptly predicted let's just say they are having their their own freedom of speech problems  

https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3uyyfx/i_didnt_think_this_day_would_come_but_ive_been/

The Gavinista shitlords didn't anticipate NotXT (despite my warning of weaponized version signals).

And they didn't anticipate NotGavinistas emulating their assclownery within the tight parameters of Poe's law, nor the chaos that would ensue from their being unable to tell genuine-but-dim friends from fake-but-clever foes.

Let's all brigade their rump subs and forums, acting really stupid (but not too stupid) by constantly reposting debunked FUD about RBF, CLTV, Peter (The) Todd, Blockstream, Theymos, and Sensor Ships.  Then throw tantrums when our shitposts are moderated...

Oh wait, we're already doing that...  


EDIT: ZOMG THE PRECIOUS 'FREE STOLFI' POST!  ITS BEEN THREADLOCKED!!1!  ZOMG SENSOR SHIPS SENSORING MUH SUB!!!  WORSE THAN A POL POT-STALIN-MAO-SERPENTOR-HILLARY HYBRID1!!1

https://np.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/3us1kl/free_jstolfi/

The vulgarian clowns and censorship-cheerleaders still believe that their agitation is a help to the BS-core development. But it isn't:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3uw5tp/slush_pool_to_reenable_bip_101_bitcoin_mining/cxj0m7s

[Zarathustra]

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/bitcoin-mining-pool-f-pool-discus-fish-maintains-bip-not-an-option-1449003767

"Switching to BIP 101 or Bitcoin XT is a bad idea; we will never do that,” Chun reiterated his earlier position. “After a meeting with some other Chinese pools earlier this year, we proposed an 8-megabyte limit, because we thought Gavin's initial 20 megabyte proposal was too big for us. I always thought 2 megabytes would be better as a first step, but I did not want to offend Gavin with a 10 times smaller proposal. Gavin then answered us with BIP 101, which due to its steep growth curve is essentially 8 gigabytes, so it’s done. I don’t trust Gavin anymore – nor Hearn for that matter.”

XT rekt like Jeremy Corbyn  

1 MB rekt.

Chun, too, believes that raising the block-size limit is an urgent matter, explaining:

“I think it is urgent, because the transaction volume is increasing on the blockchain, and if the price rises in near future, it will push the transaction volume to be even higher. I think the max block size should be raised as soon as possible, but it should not be raised too much. Two megabytes is preferred as the first step.”

You'll get at least a doubled cap soonish. Not tonight dear, but 2016.