Analysis and list of top big blocks shills (XT #REKT ignorers)

[keepdoing]

You are the one calling people shills without evidence, you are only exposing yourself by doing this.

You don't need evidence of nothing when unknown people pop up supporting various proposals. Those votes can't be verified thus shouldn't be counted nor do they matter for consensus. I'm not exposing anything, my position is more or less clear. On some points I support Core Developers and on some I don't. I would put more effort into arguing if I was able to come up with something better, but I'm not. I suggest that you adjust your pattern (more contributing, less complaining).

Lauda, you are a burger eating monkey.  An obnoxious, shilling, troll.  I have rarely ever seen you contribute anything of value towards making progress.  Your entire existence here is predicated on misdirection, obstinency, and generally being an annoying ulcerous loser.

i.e hithertooo, forthwith, and with no further adieu or by your leave, I wave my wand, and...

Bada Boom!  Bada Bing! Ignoriamus!

What do you know.  It worked!  He's gone   Wooo Hoooooo!

[Peter R]

Mining centralization already happened but small blockers are afraid that the geographic area or region with fastest internet speeds will become the only place mining will be competitive if blocks get big.  But I'm not buying their argument.

As far as the numbers, there's 8 bits in one byte.  Therefore, a difference of 8 megabits in speed is one megabyte per second.
If block size is 8 MB, that's 8 seconds.  Yet it takes 10 minutes to solve a block so 8/600.

Here's one of the small-blocker's argument regarding self-propagation as I understand it (I have not rigorously gone through the math myself):

Large miners and mining pools have an advantage because the "propagation time" to their own hash power is fast compared to the propagation time to the rest of the hash power.  Assuming worst case that their "self-propagation time" is zero, then larger miners and mining pools have two advantages:

1.  Advantage due to latency (does not depend on block size).  

Recent work by G. Andrew Stone, suggests that average network latency for the propagation of block solutions is approximately 10 seconds.  

This means that after a miner solves a block, he will have a 10 second "head start", meaning that he'll be hashing for

     10 sec / 600 sec = 1.7%

longer than the other miners.  This "advantage" occurs more frequently if you're a large miner or mining pool simply because you solve more blocks.  If h is the miner's hash power and H is the network's hash power, the total advantage is equal to

     1.7% h/H.

A miner with 20% of the network hash rate thus has a 1.7% x 20% = 0.34% advantage for winning the block reward.  This advantage does not depend on block size.  


2.  Advantage due to bandwidth (does depend on block size)

In the same paper, Andrew Stone also estimated the propagation impedance to be approximately 17 seconds / MB.  Since miners can SPV mine on just the block header, the propagation impedance only affects their ability to claim the fees in a block.  

Let's consider 2 MB blocks with 1 BTC in fees.  

It will take

     17 sec/MB   x   2 MB  = 34 sec

longer to propagate.  

This means that after a miner solves a block, he will have a 34 second "head start" on claiming the fees in the block, meaning that he'll be hashing on a non-empty block for

     34 sec / 600 sec = 5.7%

longer than the other miners.  By the same rationale as before, his advantage with respect to the fees is

     5.7% h/H.

A miner with 20% of the network hash rate thus has a 5.7% x 20% = 1.1% advantage for winning the fees.  Since the fees were esimated as 1 BTC, this is a 1.1% / 25 = 0.044% advantage overall.  


It seems to me that latency is more of an issue than the block size; however, both would appear to be negligible compared to things like the cost of electricity and availability of efficient hardware.    

[Bergmann_Christoph]

Also I really wonder why the moderators tolerate that this gang of hooligans continuosly violates all rules of online-discussion. I don't know any forum where something like this would be tolerated more than two days.

I heard Theymos and the other moderators here are strictly with core and team small blocks. If so, they should be worried that this childish-faszist behavior of their supporters does much harm to the core devs and blockstream. Usually people are judged with by the behavior of their friends.

You are just another shill that was created in order to manipulate people. The staff does not have to agree with theymos and many do on different matters. IIRC it even says somewhere that we should not change our behavioral pattern just because we have become a part of the staff. Most of the negative energy is coming from the manipulators while the Core developers are working hard on improving Bitcoin. I can't say the same for you and your kind.

I'm not unknown. I'm C.Bergmann, hero member, as long here as you, but I lost my account and my recovery-request was not answered. I'm well-known in german bitcoin community.  

Most time I enjoyed this forum and this community, if online or in real live, as a pleasure and a open-mindend community which is patient, intelligent, likes to discuss, critical against authorities, helpful, enthusiastic and shares high moral / political claims.

This thread - and especially your role in it - is a very bad example for the atmosphere in bitcointalk. But it is just disgusting and toxic and authorative. I don't know, if you are just a hater, who enjoys this, the boy who waited for others to fall so he could trample on them, or if you really fear the big-blockers are going to destroy bitcoin willingly with their lies.

Do you really think I'm the only one who asks: Why does he need to spread so much hate and toxicity? Why can't he speak with arguments instead of insults? Is this the way the future of bitcoin is decided? The way new approaches are presented? The reaction of the community to new ideas?

The fact is: if we stopp talking and discussing, everybody certainly looses.

[Lauda]

I'm not unknown. I'm C.Bergmann, hero member, as long here as you, but I lost my account and my recovery-request was not answered. I'm well-known in german bitcoin community.  

I apologize then. I quickly jumped to conclusions for reasons that I'm not going to write here (because they are off-topic). However, it does apply to the countless amount of shills that have appeared for both sides (XT vs Core, BU vs Core, etc.). There are countless examples of this and I did not mean to directly name you. I do dislike your statement in regards to theymos and the moderators (including me) because it is false.

The fact is: if we stopp talking and discussing, everybody certainly looses.

This is true, but talking nonsense is also redundant which results in time lost. I'm open to collaboration, but not manipulation and attempts to shift away users to controversial ideas (e.g. XT).

I don't know, if you are just a hater, who enjoys this, the boy who waited for others to fall so he could trample on them, or if you really fear the big-blockers are going to destroy bitcoin willingly with their lies.

They could easily. There was a nice slide presented at the time of the first workshop that showed what a single 8 MB block could do.

[hdbuck]

How is being against XT, BU, blocksize increase, segwit and any soft/hard/flabby ph0rks in general, blockstream related? Fuck them too if they can't innovate without crippeling Bitcoin's PROTOCOL.

Both soft and hard forks are needed and can be quite useful. One day (and I hope not) there will be a urgent need for a hard fork or else Bitcoin dies.

Is bitcoin dying^tm? How is it needed to add complexity and segregating^tm cryptographic signatures an improvement^tm? All this for what? Mass adoption^tm?

Ill informed spammers and corporate parasite sucking up sovereignty from bitcoin's protocol because #community #democracy?

[VeritasSapere]

Good to see some of the maths behind this issue, this issue is made even more negligible considering that all of the smaller miners connect to larger public pools thereby negating any disadvantageous they might have otherwise had, since larger miners and pools operate at such a large scale that the increased cost of running a full node is also negligible for them in terms of mining. This is why I have always said that increasing the blocksize does not effect mining centralization whatsoever.

[Fatman3001]

"Centralization of mining due to slow propagation with bigger blocks" is mostly a strawman argument.

Even if the blocksize went up to 8MB with no increases in Internet speed,
you're talking about 8 seconds difference between an 8mbit connection and
a 16mbit connection.  Compare to the 600 seconds required to solve a block
and you get 8/600 = .0133~.    So that's a 1.3% advantage to the faster
miner.  Quite dubious to say that would be a crushing competitive advantage
given that there are other factors involved in mining costs such as electricity,
gear, and operations.

Sry, I can't follow your numbers there with regards to block propagation. But mining centralization has already largely happened because of the economics of Bitcoin mining.  

Mining centralization already happened but small blockers are afraid that the geographic area or region with fastest internet speeds will become the only
place mining will be competitive if blocks get big.  But I'm not buying their argument.

Big miners just need a server located somewhere with high bandwidth connection to as much of the globe as possible. This server sends work (tiny amounts of data regardless of block size) to the their mine in the outback. Or they, or anyone else, can join a pool.

As far as the numbers, there's 8 bits in one byte.  Therefore, a difference of 8 megabits in speed is one megabyte per second.
If block size is 8 MB, that's 8 seconds.  Yet it takes 10 minutes to solve a block so 8/600.

It's not like every miner has 5891 connections. They send to as many nodes as they can and those nodes send to as many as they can and so on. It's sort of like grass fire.

That is true. But to claim consensus when the lines haven't moved is a bit weird and, in my view, quite problematic. A more honest approach would be to admit/accept that consensus could not be reached but that this particular group has decided to move forward with an agreed upon set of solutions.

The lines have not moved a bit? Are you even sure about that? The roadmap for 2016 was signed by several people.

"[M]oved a bit"? Anyhew, this is roughly what I meant:

Three out of the five Core committers, did not even sign on to the Core road map.

[Lauda]

One day (and I hope not) there will be a urgent need for a hard fork or else Bitcoin dies.

Is bitcoin dying^tm? How is it needed to add complexity and segregating^tm cryptographic signatures an improvement^tm? All this for what? Mass adoption^tm?

Please read before posting next time. I said 'there will' not 'there is'. Segwit is not related to my arguement that hard forks might be necessary.

"[M]oved a bit"? Anyhew, this is roughly what I meant:

Three out of the five Core committers, did not even sign on to the Core road map.

I'm aware of that and it isn't a bad thing IMO. I would be a bit suspicious if they were all agreeing pretty quickly on various matters.

[tl121]

I would think you'll send your received blocks to more than 1 other node.

The number of blocks nodes received averages out to be approximately the number of blocks these nodes send. "Number of takeoffs approximately equals number of landings." If you have a well connected node with lots of bandwidth then it's possible you will send out more data than you receive, but that is unlikely to happen if you have limited bandwidth.  Thus the network average remains 1 to 1 (except for new nodes).

If a new node starts up then it will have to receive each block once.  If an incompetently run node keeps crashing and losing the entire block database and has no backup then this will happen multiple times.   This part of the problem can easily be fixed by nodes with limited upstream bandwidth deprioritizing transmission of older blocks during time of congestion. (One of many possible network optimizations that can and will appear should they be needed.)

[Fatman3001]

@tl121 I agree, that wasn't the best way of putting it. But I wasn't talking about averages. That would make little sense, as you pointed out.

"[M]oved a bit"? Anyhew, this is roughly what I meant:

Three out of the five Core committers, did not even sign on to the Core road map.

I'm aware of that and it isn't a bad thing IMO. I would be a bit suspicious if they were all agreeing pretty quickly on various matters.

...eh? Good, so where does this holy consensus fit in then?

And by "holy" I mean "unassailable".

[DooMAD]

We should be collaborating, not fighting.

Some people have been collaborating, but then other come along and use words like "populist", "coup", "hostile takeover", "contentious" and "altcoin".  It takes two sides to have a fight.  Perhaps if people were permitted to collaborate without being silenced or swept under the carpet, then more would be accomplished by now.

I'm open to collaboration, but not manipulation and attempts to shift away users to controversial ideas.

"I'm open to discussion, but only if you agree with everything I say"?  Just because something is deemed controversial by some, doesn't mean it shouldn't be discussed.

[Lauda]

Some people have been collaborating, but then other come along and use words like "populist", "coup", "hostile takeover", "contentious" and "altcoin".  It takes two sides to have a fight.  Perhaps if people were permitted to collaborate without being silenced or swept under the carpet, then more would be accomplished by now.

I'm assuming that by 'other' and those words theymos firstly because I've seen him use them. Remember, he is letting you discuss this in the forum that he manages (this is another XT thread).

"I'm open to discussion, but only if you agree with everything I say"?  Just because something is deemed controversial by some, doesn't mean it shouldn't be discussed.

Wrong. I'm open to discuss ideas that would benefit Bitcoin (e.g. IBLT, Lightning). I'm not open to potential takeovers between various groups and implementations. This does not benefit the protocol.

...eh? Good, so where does this holy consensus fit in then?

And by "holy" I mean "unassailable".

Majority; not everyone. Would you be more comfortable if all the Core developers were quickly reaching consensus among themselves especially in regards to their own proposals? Some have already been called out because of Blockstream even though it is pretty obvious that they don't share the same views.

[Peter R]

I'm open to discuss ideas that would benefit Bitcoin.

What is your opinion on the idea that Bitcoin is ultimately governed by the code people freely choose to run?  



If this is the case, is there any way to hold back the invisible hand of the market?

[Cconvert2G36]

...
seriously you need to look outside the blockstream box to see the big picture.

How is being against XT, BU, blocksize increase, segwit and any soft/hard/flabby ph0rks in general, blockstream related? Fuck them too if they can't innovate without crippeling Bitcoin's PROTOCOL.

[DooMAD]

Some people have been collaborating, but then other come along and use words like "populist", "coup", "hostile takeover", "contentious" and "altcoin".  It takes two sides to have a fight.  Perhaps if people were permitted to collaborate without being silenced or swept under the carpet, then more would be accomplished by now.

I'm assuming that by 'other' and those words theymos firstly because I've seen him use them. Remember, he is letting you discuss this in the forum that he manages (this is another XT thread).

Perhaps after realising the futility of trying to prevent it.  The intent was clearly to the contrary.  It certainly wasn't in the spirit of collaborating.

"I'm open to discussion, but only if you agree with everything I say"?  Just because something is deemed controversial by some, doesn't mean it shouldn't be discussed.

Wrong. I'm open to discuss ideas that would benefit Bitcoin (e.g. IBLT, Lightning). I'm not open to potential takeovers between various groups and implementations. This does not benefit the protocol.

You're not open to allowing people to choose what software they run?  Consider carefully what it is you're actually saying here.  Personally, given the choice, I'd prefer to have the option of a potential "takeover", although I'd argue that's still a word loaded with bias.  The alternative would be a closed-source coin where only a single group of developers (or possibly even a single individual) can decide the rules as they please.  I wouldn't be here if that were the case.  Would you?

[siameze]

Thanks for this list, dunno how I didn't find it sooner. Most of the obvious shills you listed are consistent with what I have seen in other threads.

Wrong. I'm open to discuss ideas that would benefit Bitcoin (e.g. IBLT, Lightning). I'm not open to potential takeovers between various groups and implementations. This does not benefit the protocol.

I too agree with this. It has already been established that larger blocks at this time are reckless.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

I'm open to discuss ideas that would benefit Bitcoin.

What is your opinion on the idea that Bitcoin is ultimately governed by the code people freely choose to run?  

https://i.imgur.com/Mpd1dWq.gif

If this is the case, is there any way to hold back the invisible hand of the market?

CHARLATAN GIF SPOTTED

Ah, the gif that made core devs feel "unsafe"?

source: here

[Fatman3001]

...eh? Good, so where does this holy consensus fit in then?

And by "holy" I mean "unassailable".

Majority; not everyone. Would you be more comfortable if all the Core developers were quickly reaching consensus among themselves especially in regards to their own proposals? Some have already been called out because of Blockstream even though it is pretty obvious that they don't share the same views.

Ok, now we're getting somewhere. So by consensus you mean majority. Regardless of what they do and where they are in the system. I see they've even got Charlie Lee to sign it. Kind of begs the question: majority of what?

To be clear, I'm not even saying that there isn't consensus among key people in the community, just that there are enough key people in dissent for there to be room for differing viewpoints. And when you get to the general community level there really is no good reason to force consensus. And as you must have seen, it doesn't even work. And this insane hunt for shills in this forum is seriously unhealthy. I don't believe hdbuck, iCEBREAKER or even brg444 are shills. And even if they were, so what? Judge them on what they write(as I have done many many times, admittedly with a little colour added). If words can wreck this party then there really isn't any point in trying anyway.

[Bergmann_Christoph]

I'm not unknown. I'm C.Bergmann, hero member, as long here as you, but I lost my account and my recovery-request was not answered. I'm well-known in german bitcoin community.  

I apologize then. I quickly jumped to conclusions for reasons that I'm not going to write here (because they are off-topic). However, it does apply to the countless amount of shills that have appeared for both sides (XT vs Core, BU vs Core, etc.). There are countless examples of this and I did not mean to directly name you. I do dislike your statement in regards to theymos and the moderators (including me) because it is false.

The fact is: if we stopp talking and discussing, everybody certainly looses.

This is true, but talking nonsense is also redundant which results in time lost. I'm open to collaboration, but not manipulation and attempts to shift away users to controversial ideas (e.g. XT).

I don't know, if you are just a hater, who enjoys this, the boy who waited for others to fall so he could trample on them, or if you really fear the big-blockers are going to destroy bitcoin willingly with their lies.

They could easily. There was a nice slide presented at the time of the first workshop that showed what a single 8 MB block could do.

Apologies accepted.

If you say moderators are independent, I believe you. But it's hard to believe that every moderator in this forum came freely to the conclusion that there should be no alternative client who violates consensus and that the blocks should not be raised now. It sounds more like the unity of a party than of free men. Or did I miss something?

Tell me more about the 8MB blocks. What could they do? I follow this debate for long, more on reddit then here, but - I never heard really confessing reasons for not raising the limit. Bandwith? Space? CPU? Node-Centralization? Mega-Transactions? None of this problem seemed like a problem large enough to stall development of bitcoin and / or scaling it completely in a way that's not the original bitcoin (lightning).

The other thing I deeple disargue with you is, as other people said: You and your team seem not to be willing to allow a free market of alternative clients and you hinder the community to collect informations to express their opinion with the choice of the client. This is a major democratic element in open source and in bitcoin, it's the major mechanism to protect bitcoin for an destructive takeover by developers (I explicitly don't mint this on Core!). If you deny and surpress this possibility, - what you say you do - you are no longer in a consensus of democracy. And bitcoin needs its own kind of democracy to survice.

[Bergmann_Christoph]

Thanks for this list, dunno how I didn't find it sooner. Most of the obvious shills you listed are consistent with what I have seen in other threads.
...
I too agree with this. It has already been established that larger blocks at this time are reckless.

Spreading lies doesn't help the discussion. For most members of the community it is NOT established.

If people like you would explain honestly and patiently why big blocks are bad, and if you would discuss this reason, instead of insulting people, claiming a non-existent consens, bullying alternatives and praising authority, you MAYBE would persuade some people to believe how "reckless" larger blocks are. But with just throwing a false statement into discussion you just ridicule your side.

Currentyl there are several well known developers (e. G. Gavin, Mike Hearn, Andreas Schildbach, Jeff Garzik) that believe that large blocks are possible. With them there are some akteurs of the economy (blockchain, bitpay, coinbase, btcchina, bitstamp, xapo) as well as the majority of the miners and a good bunch of members of bitcointalk that I remember as being most sophisticated early in 2013.

So no, it is not established that larger blocks do harm at this time. Please - stop spreading lies.