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

[Peter R]

And the block size limit has nothing to do with free market, it is just a measure to prevent spam attacks, without this limit, a bank can jam the traffic on bitcoin network for months, so that no transaction can be done at all

I don't think anyone is suggesting that all nodes and miners should be compelled to stop enforcing a block size limit.  I think it's more of a question of how that limit should be determined.  Should it be decreed by experts in a "top-down" process, or should it emerge naturally through a "bottom-up" process?  

Nodes decide the code they run and if there was consensus amongst these peers that the block size should be increased then it would.

Is that not "bottom-up" enough for your liking?

Yes, I agree; that is the spirit behind Bitcoin Unlimited:

"As a foundational principle, we assert that Bitcoin is and should be whatever its users define by the code they run, and the rules they vote for with their hash power." -- Bitcoin Unlimited's Vision

Bitcoin Unlimited is a project designed to make it easier for node operators to exercise their free choice in this regard, so that consensus on issues like the block size limit can more efficiently emerge.  

[1714677289]

1714677289

[1714677289]

1714677289

[1714677289]

1714677289

[1714677289]

1714677289

[Lauda]

I don't think anyone is suggesting that all nodes and miners should be compelled to stop enforcing a block size limit.  I think it's more of a question of how that limit should be determined.  Should it be decreed by experts in a "top-down" process, or should it emerge naturally through a "bottom-up" process? 

Don't use this word just because you support that idea. There is nothing natural about the process that you are proposing.

It will be based on user feedback, but not something out of thin air, Users must physically experience the problem and send their feedback to change the current design

Are Blocks Filling up, and Is That a Problem?

It is not a problem and shills are trying to exaggerate the situation. However, one has to keep in mind that a single event could trigger a huge increase in the amount of transactions (we are not prepared for this).

[Cconvert2G36]

One of the famous false prophecy of Karl Marx is that the free market mechanism would be lead to the monopoly of few corporations (thanks to economy of scale) that would end up controling the world production.

In other world, he tought unconstrained competition would allow for large entities to capture the economy.

This is already realized in many countries, a few large enterprises controlled the production of almost everything in a country. And the best example is the fiat money creation, totally dominated by a few reserve banks, while from the beginning any kind of private currency is allowed to circulate

And the block size limit has nothing to do with free market, it is just a measure to prevent spam attacks, without this limit, a bank can jam the traffic on bitcoin network for months, so that no transaction can be done at all

This makes no sense. The current limit basically provides a lower bar for the nefarious banking institution organizing the attack. The attacker has less room to fill to effectively price out all other transactions. It makes the attack cheaper.

I have heard arguments that the limit should be used to "foster the growth of a fee market" which really means raising tx prices via an artificial, centrally planned, capacity limit. Miners, the producers of new block space, should determine the optimum size blocks to create while accounting for orphan risk and the health of the entire network. Harm the network and they harm their future earning potential. Create a huge block that takes forever to verify, be prepared to be orphaned by a chain of smaller blocks.

max-block-size, if necessary at all, should be a circuit breaker or malicious miner protection only. Not an economic policy tool. Satoshi understood free market incentives, he designed the system around them, they should be allowed to work.

[Peter R]

It will be based on user feedback, but not something out of thin air. Users must physically experience the problem and send their feedback to change the current design

I agree with this as well.  It will be very interesting to watch how the process unfolds.

I've been trying to quantify the "forking pressure" and I suspect it will soon be strong enough to break down the 1-MB dam the is presently blocking the stream of transactions:

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

I don't think anyone is suggesting that all nodes and miners should be compelled to stop enforcing a block size limit.  I think it's more of a question of how that limit should be determined.  Should it be decreed by experts in a "top-down" process, or should it emerge naturally through a "bottom-up" process? 

Don't use this word just because you support that idea. There is nothing natural about the process that you are proposing.

It will be based on user feedback, but not something out of thin air, Users must physically experience the problem and send their feedback to change the current design

Are Blocks Filling up, and Is That a Problem?

It is not a problem and shills are trying to exaggerate the situation. However, one has to keep in mind that a single event could trigger a huge increase in the amount of transactions (we are not prepared for this).

A single event like this?
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3yfxm4/custodial_wallet_users_gated_just_waiting_to_be/

Coinbase alone claims 3 million users: http://reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3ye8zv

Even if only 1/3rd of them hold a balance, that means if suddenly half of the block space was to be consumed by Coinbase withdrawals, it would still take several days for all 1 million user's withdrawal requests to be processed (due to block size restriction).

[Lauda]

A single event like this?
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3yfxm4/custodial_wallet_users_gated_just_waiting_to_be/

Coinbase alone claims 3 million users: http://reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3ye8zv

Even if only 1/3rd of them hold a balance, that means if suddenly half of the block space was to be consumed by Coinbase withdrawals, it would still take several days for all 1 million user's withdrawal requests to be processed (due to block size restriction).

Well, I wasn't really talking about a event where the existing users would flood the system with transactions. I thought of a event where a lot of people would become interested in Bitcoin/join it. However, the example linked also applies. Even though that is a concern it is not worth risking the whole system over it. I do wonder though why the Core developers don't bump to 2 MB; if we consider all the research done so far I don't think it would have any harmful effects that (too) big blocks might have.

[Cconvert2G36]

A single event like this?
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3yfxm4/custodial_wallet_users_gated_just_waiting_to_be/

Coinbase alone claims 3 million users: http://reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3ye8zv

Even if only 1/3rd of them hold a balance, that means if suddenly half of the block space was to be consumed by Coinbase withdrawals, it would still take several days for all 1 million user's withdrawal requests to be processed (due to block size restriction).

Well, I wasn't really talking about a event where the existing users would flood the system with transactions. I thought of a event where a lot of people would become interested in Bitcoin/join it. However, the example linked also applies. Even though that is a concern it is not worth risking the whole system over it. I do wonder though why the Core developers don't bump to 2 MB; if we consider all the research done so far I don't think it would have any harmful effects that (too) big blocks might have.

I absolutely share your thoughts here. It would have given some breathing room and some very helpful data to plan for the future. It also would have largely ended the bitter division that the community is suffering.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

A single event like this?
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3yfxm4/custodial_wallet_users_gated_just_waiting_to_be/

Coinbase alone claims 3 million users: http://reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3ye8zv

Even if only 1/3rd of them hold a balance, that means if suddenly half of the block space was to be consumed by Coinbase withdrawals, it would still take several days for all 1 million user's withdrawal requests to be processed (due to block size restriction).

Well, I wasn't really talking about a event where the existing users would flood the system with transactions. I thought of a event where a lot of people would become interested in Bitcoin/join it. However, the example linked also applies. Even though that is a concern it is not worth risking the whole system over it. I do wonder though why the Core developers don't bump to 2 MB; if we consider all the research done so far I don't think it would have any harmful effects that (too) big blocks might have.

I absolutely share your thoughts here. It would have given some breathing room and some very helpful data to plan for the future. It also would have largely ended the bitter division that the community is suffering.

Agreed.

[johnyj]

And the block size limit has nothing to do with free market, it is just a measure to prevent spam attacks, without this limit, a bank can jam the traffic on bitcoin network for months, so that no transaction can be done at all

This makes no sense. The current limit basically provides a lower bar for the nefarious banking institution organizing the attack. The attacker has less room to fill to effectively price out all other transactions. It makes the attack cheaper.

I have heard arguments that the limit should be used to "foster the growth of a fee market" which really means raising tx prices via an artificial, centrally planned, capacity limit. Miners, the producers of new block space, should determine the optimum size blocks to create while accounting for orphan risk and the health of the entire network. Harm the network and they harm their future earning potential. Create a huge block that takes forever to verify, be prepared to be orphaned by a chain of smaller blocks.

max-block-size, if necessary at all, should be a circuit breaker or malicious miner protection only. Not an economic policy tool. Satoshi understood free market incentives, he designed the system around them, they should be allowed to work.

Attacks being cheaper or expensive means nothing for malicious large institutions, but if they are unable to stop the normal function of bitcoin network, then the attack is just wasted resource. A large block gives attacker such possibility to stop the traffic of all nodes because all they need to do is sending out large blocks that takes forever to verify (You don't know how long to verify a block unless you have already verified it), and if they control some super nodes that can quickly verify such kind of blocks, that will give them more chance to orphan the rest of the network since no one is able to keep up with their verifying speed

Of course this special kind of dust sweeping block can be prevented at nodes level, but currently there is no fix yet as I know. And when you start to police on what kind of transaction is illicit then you really start to act like a government organization  

[Cconvert2G36]

And the block size limit has nothing to do with free market, it is just a measure to prevent spam attacks, without this limit, a bank can jam the traffic on bitcoin network for months, so that no transaction can be done at all

This makes no sense. The current limit basically provides a lower bar for the nefarious banking institution organizing the attack. The attacker has less room to fill to effectively price out all other transactions. It makes the attack cheaper.

I have heard arguments that the limit should be used to "foster the growth of a fee market" which really means raising tx prices via an artificial, centrally planned, capacity limit. Miners, the producers of new block space, should determine the optimum size blocks to create while accounting for orphan risk and the health of the entire network. Harm the network and they harm their future earning potential. Create a huge block that takes forever to verify, be prepared to be orphaned by a chain of smaller blocks.

max-block-size, if necessary at all, should be a circuit breaker or malicious miner protection only. Not an economic policy tool. Satoshi understood free market incentives, he designed the system around them, they should be allowed to work.

Attacks being cheaper or expensive means nothing for malicious large institutions, but if they are unable to stop the normal function of bitcoin network, then the attack is just wasted resource. A large block gives attacker such possibility to stop the traffic of all nodes because all they need to do is sending out large blocks that takes forever to verify (You don't know how long to verify a block unless you have already verified it), and if they control some super nodes that can quickly verify such kind of blocks, that will give them more chance to orphan the rest of the network since no one is able to keep up with their verifying speed

Of course this special kind of dust sweeping block can be prevented at nodes level, but currently there is no fix yet as I know. And when you start to police on what kind of transaction is illicit then you really start to act like a government organization  

In your scenario they would need a huge amount of hashing power to actually make their own giant blocks. If that's the case... we've got bigger problems than block size, and they could do much more destructive things than just a big block attack.

A simpler, and cheaper attack would just be to waste some btc on fees to completely fill 1MB blocks, pricing out everyone else...

The only security against nation states with hundreds of billions of $ at their disposal is either through obscurity (monero) or through ubiquity (too big and important to attack).

[johnyj]

In your scenario they would need a huge amount of hashing power to actually make their own giant blocks

I guess you only need to construct such a specific block that takes forever to verify, not necessary a valid mined block, no hash power is needed

[Cconvert2G36]

In your scenario they would need a huge amount of hashing power to actually make their own giant blocks

I guess you only need to construct such a specific block that takes forever to verify, not necessary a valid mined block, no hash power is needed

An economically rational miner wouldn't sit there trying to validate an invalid block forever... they won't stay a miner for long. They'll set their own limits and seek the longest chain of valid POW. They already mine short coinbase only blocks simply due to fear of orphan risk. 

[johnyj]

In your scenario they would need a huge amount of hashing power to actually make their own giant blocks

I guess you only need to construct such a specific block that takes forever to verify, not necessary a valid mined block, no hash power is needed

An economically rational miner wouldn't sit there trying to validate an invalid block forever... they won't stay a miner for long. They'll set their own limits and seek the longest chain of valid POW. They already mine short coinbase only blocks simply due to fear of orphan risk.  

If you look at the coinwallet.eu September attack, they did not do anything, just give out coins that stored in millions of dust addresses, and people automatically come to construct special transactions to claim those coins. This is similar to throwing out millions of $20 notes from the top of Empire State Building, it will immediately jam the traffic of Manhattan. How do you prevent people from claiming those notes? In fact F2pool is the one who claimed a mass of those coins and get a block took 30 seconds to verify

[Cconvert2G36]

In your scenario they would need a huge amount of hashing power to actually make their own giant blocks

I guess you only need to construct such a specific block that takes forever to verify, not necessary a valid mined block, no hash power is needed

An economically rational miner wouldn't sit there trying to validate an invalid block forever... they won't stay a miner for long. They'll set their own limits and seek the longest chain of valid POW. They already mine short coinbase only blocks simply due to fear of orphan risk.  

If you look at the coinwallet.eu September attack, they did not do anything, just give out coins that stored in millions of dust addresses, and people automatically come to construct special transactions to claim those coins. This is similar to throwing out millions of $20 notes from the top of Empire State Building, it will immediately jam the traffic of Manhattan. How do you prevent people from claiming those notes? In fact F2pool is the one who claimed a mass of those coins and get a block took 30 seconds to verify

F2Pool did that block to clean it up. I guess there is always the obscurity option for attack resilience.

[VeritasSapere]

It seems like you do not get it, everyone essentially can decide the blocksize for themselves under Bitcoin Unlimited, it takes this power away from centralized development teams. In effect this would have to be a negotiation between the miners and the economic majority.

You're the one who doesn't get the question. Since 'everyone can decide', it doesn't answer my question. My question is how? (e.g. voting within the software or something)

Yes, there is a simple GUI where you can select several different variables within the client itself. Including max block size generated, max accepted blocksize and block depth. It is capable of tracking a fork and once it reaches a particular block depth it can switch over. This all depends on the settings that the user chooses. By default Bitcoin Unlimited will behave exactly like Core until the majority of the hashpower starts to mine larger blocks. Essentially Bitcoin Unlimited is just giving people the freedom of choice, instead of this choice being made by any development team.

[Lauda]

Yes, there is a simple GUI where you can select several different variables within the client itself. Including max block size generated, max accepted blocksize and block depth. It is able of tracking a fork and once it reaches a particular block depth it can switch over. This all depends on the settings that the user chooses. By default Bitcoin Unlimited will behave exactly like Core until the majority of the hashpower starts to mine larger blocks.

Interesting. What is preventing entities from cheating the system by running thousands of clients with bogus votes?

Essentially Bitcoin Unlimited is just giving people the freedom of choice, instead of this choice being made by any development team.

This is false. People make their choice once they decide to run Core (that's their choice; they could run other implementations).

[VeritasSapere]

Yes, there is a simple GUI where you can select several different variables within the client itself. Including max block size generated, max accepted blocksize and block depth. It is able of tracking a fork and once it reaches a particular block depth it can switch over. This all depends on the settings that the user chooses. By default Bitcoin Unlimited will behave exactly like Core until the majority of the hashpower starts to mine larger blocks.

Interesting. What is preventing entities from cheating the system by running thousands of clients with bogus votes?

It is the miners that create new blocks, that is what counts, nodes simply choose whether to follow the miners or not. Nodes can be spoofed, proof of work can not, this is why it works.

Essentially Bitcoin Unlimited is just giving people the freedom of choice, instead of this choice being made by any development team.

This is false. People make their choice once they decide to run Core (that's their choice; they could run other implementations).

Having several viable options between multiple implementations, does enable people to have the freedom of choice, which is similar to a representative democracy. However Bitcoin Unlimited is different in regards to the blocksize, it can be more accurately described as a more direct form of democracy, which I would argue is superior.

[Peter R]

Essentially Bitcoin Unlimited is just giving people the freedom of choice, instead of this choice being made by any development team.

This is false. People make their choice once they decide to run Core (that's their choice; they could run other implementations).

I think what he means is that Bitcoin Unlimited has given freedom of choice to the people who didn't want to run Core (or who wanted to make adjustments), but didn't have the aptitude to code and compile their own clients.  Along with XT, it's also created competition, which I think resonates with a lot of people as a sort of "balancing of powers," as it were.  Of course, if people choose to run Core when given other options, then that is their free choice as well.

[puck2]

At least use a VPN.   

I can't figure out how to run a node through PIA VPN. Should I use their SOCKS5 proxy option? Will my node traffic automatically be routed through the VPN if I am running the PIA client software?

[arruah]

I am using biticoinxt node.