ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT

[adamstgBit]

glad to see your onboard for segwit.

How about you roll a blunt or open a bottle of wine and chill a bit, you're not helping yourself getting all excited and drinking the bitco.in kool aid. Really, stay away from that place it's full of scammers and liars.

What do you mean?

frapdoc is totally legit! *cough* Hashfast *cough*

Friend, just in case you're young & naive: Nnothing and no one here "is totally legit."
Welcome to Bitcoin.

What are you suggesting? That we should ignore the fact that people like frapdoc and jl777 pulled massive scams on the bitcoin community? If you're suggesting that everyone in the community has done so.... well, I disagree.

No, not suggesting that everyone has. Many have, more have tried & failed (because not smart enough to steal even from their fellow intrepid entrepreneurs -- the other bitcoin enthusiasts).
And pretty much the rest are just grist for the mill -- victims, degenerate gamblers, those who prey on degenerate gamblers.
And those who eke out a living by promoting illegal dice sites [that prey on degenerate gamblers] in their signatures, and those who post that for the Nth time they're "all in" because moon and CCMF, etc., etc...

Have I missed anyone? I'm sure I have.

bargainbin views are always so brutally honest with a side of trollishness
its quite entertaining! but at times extremely annoying... meh wtv.

moving on.

[adamstgBit]

its probably best to not look at what anyone is saying about any of this and try to come up with your own idea of which you like better

do you want the scaling to effect node cost or TX cost.

simple as that.

[exstasie]

its probably best to not look at what anyone is saying about any of this and try to come up with your own idea of which you like better

do you want the scaling to effect node cost or TX cost.

simple as that.

No, that is only if you approach this as 1mb vs 2mb. It's 1mb-->Segwit-->weak blocks/IBLT/LN-->1.5+mb vs 2mb

[adamstgBit]

its probably best to not look at what anyone is saying about any of this and try to come up with your own idea of which you like better

do you want the scaling to effect node cost or TX cost.

simple as that.

No, that is only if you approach this as 1mb vs 2mb. It's 1mb-->Segwit-->weak blocks/IBLT/LN-->1.5+mb vs 2mb

with core we are sure to pay higher and higher fees to TX on the mainchain
with classic we are sure to pay higher and higher internet usages bills and have to upgrade our computers running the nodes.

is this wrong?

[Lauda]

Did such a thing ever happen before? What would happen to Bitcoin if it did?

Nodes are occasionally under DDoS.

Care to share some studies/numbers/costs?

I don't think there are one. There are too many possible variables that need to be accounted for and even then the estimation would be bad.

What would such a DoS attack mean to the Bitcoin network?

Well, if a DDoS attack takes down everything then you're left without nodes and without them you have no network.

WTF does that mean? Another made-up word like "antifragile"?

Strange question. What is Bitcoin to you? As soon as you kick out individuals by doing various actions (e.g. expontentially increase costs) you are essentially 'censoring' their usage of Bitcoin.

[exstasie]

its probably best to not look at what anyone is saying about any of this and try to come up with your own idea of which you like better

do you want the scaling to effect node cost or TX cost.

simple as that.

No, that is only if you approach this as 1mb vs 2mb. It's 1mb-->Segwit-->weak blocks/IBLT/LN-->1.5+mb vs 2mb

with core we are sure to pay higher and higher fees to TX on the mainchain
with classic we are sure to pay higher and higher internet usages bills and have to upgrade our computers running the nodes.

is this wrong?

That depends. Segwit nodes won't be paying higher and higher fees, at least in the mid term. The latter...yes. But it's more of an issue for people/regions that don't even have the infrastructure for drastically bigger blocks. And node centralization is secondary to propagation delays. Miners are already highly centralized, and further delays in relay from bigger blocks will just continue to kill off smaller miners with orphans.

[exstasie]

BTW, I tried warning "the community" about Cypher & HashFast. "The community" thought it knew better & called me a FUDster and ...even worse
So zero compassion

@adam re. "kinda sounds like he got sucked into promoting Hashfast and Hashfast never delivered?"
Lol no, he knew exactly what he was doing. Don't assume that just because Core supporters are douches, Classic supporters are saints.

Yeah don't get me wrong, people who get scammed generally can't be helped. They just don't understand how the world works and hopefully will learn. Most won't.

And yeah, frapdoc is a total piece of shit.

[bargainbin]

Did such a thing ever happen before? What would happen to Bitcoin if it did?

Nodes are occasionally under DDoS.

Care to share some studies/numbers/costs?

I don't think there are one. There are too many possible variables that need to be accounted for and even then the estimation would be bad.

What would such a DoS attack mean to the Bitcoin network?

Well, if a DDoS attack takes down everything then you're left without nodes and without them you have no network.

TL;DR: Nodes have been DoSed before, attacker gains nothing by it; at worst slows down tx confirms & gets bored.

WTF does that mean? Another made-up word like "antifragile"?

Strange question. What is Bitcoin to you? As soon as you kick out individuals by doing various actions (e.g. expontentially increase costs) you are essentially 'censoring' their usage of Bitcoin.

So. Higher price of running nodes is a form of censorship. But ...higher tx fees... are not
Would rising BTC price be a sensorship too? Would tanking BTC maximize muh freedoms?
Help me understand this shipping shit.

[Lauda]

TL;DR: Nodes have been DoSed before, attacker gains nothing by it; at worst slows down tx confirms & gets bored.

Wrong. Nodes have been under attacks before, but the network remains functional because of the number and diversity of nodes. If you heavily reduce the number of nodes and concentrate them, then taking out the whole network for some time becomes a possibility.

So. Higher price of running nodes is a form of censorship. But ...higher tx fees... are not

According to Classic you could get your own node for $10 a month, and probably less if you set-up one at home (e.g. costs like the internet are already paid for). Adam was talking about $10k yearly per node, so we are talking about a 100x increase in cost. Currently, let's say that the TX fee is around 10 cents (arbitrary due to example). A 100x increase would bring us to a fee of $10. This will never happen as there won't be a reason to use Bitcoin by then. Additionally, it is worth noting that the users/market decides on the fees.

[bargainbin]

TL;DR: Nodes have been DoSed before, attacker gains nothing by it; at worst slows down tx confirms & gets bored.

Wrong. Nodes have been under attacks before, but the network remains functional because of the number and diversity of nodes. If you heavily reduce the number of nodes and concentrate them, then taking out the whole network for some time becomes a possibility.

So. Higher price of running nodes is a form of censorship. But ...higher tx fees... are not

According to Classic you could get your own node for $10 a month, and probably less if you set-up one at home (e.g. costs like the internet are already paid for). Adam was talking about $10k yearly per node, so we are talking about a 100x increase in cost. Currently, let's say that the TX fee is around 10 cents (arbitrary due to example). A 100x increase would bring us to a fee of $10. This will never happen as there won't be a reason to use Bitcoin by then. Additionally, it is worth noting that the users/market decides on the fees.

So you do believe that raising the price is a form of censorship?
From your [rather ...unconventional] definition, we reasonably infer that:

1. obsoleting zero-fee transactions (increasing the cost of transacting by ∞% (infinite percent) is the worst kind sensor ship, making the hundredfold price increase of running a node [sounds absolutely ridiculous, link pls?] seem paltry in comparison.
Especially when one considers that being unable to run a full node hardly impairs one's ability to use Bitcoin, while inability to afford tx fees makes it impossible

2. Free market price discovery is a sensorship; it is unethical for a business to raise prices; if I can't afford to buy a tropical island, I'm being sensorshipped & therefore oppressed, which s wrong because infringes on my natural rights as a sovereign city-zen.

P.S. What do you mean by "diversity of nodes," and how does this diversity make the network less susceptible to DoS attacks?

[adamstgBit]

its probably best to not look at what anyone is saying about any of this and try to come up with your own idea of which you like better

do you want the scaling to effect node cost or TX cost.

simple as that.

No, that is only if you approach this as 1mb vs 2mb. It's 1mb-->Segwit-->weak blocks/IBLT/LN-->1.5+mb vs 2mb

with core we are sure to pay higher and higher fees to TX on the mainchain
with classic we are sure to pay higher and higher internet usages bills and have to upgrade our computers running the nodes.

is this wrong?

That depends. Segwit nodes won't be paying higher and higher fees, at least in the mid term. The latter...yes. But it's more of an issue for people/regions that don't even have the infrastructure for drastically bigger blocks. And node centralization is secondary to propagation delays. Miners are already highly centralized, and further delays in relay from bigger blocks will just continue to kill off smaller miners with orphans.

there are no "smaller miners" tho
they ALL run off pools.

if you solo mine bitcoin, you have a 10million dollar warehouse filled with top of the line miners which you plan to upgrade regularly
buying a adequate internet connection is beyond trivial at this point.

[adamstgBit]

Adam was talking about $10k yearly per node

in my most nutty post  " decentralization of world domination " implying that governments are now peers on the network, and Bitcoin has become the fabric which holds the world together, I suggested that 100,000$/year was cheap like dirt to run a peer on such a network

 

[adamstgBit]

...
A 100x increase would bring us to a fee of $10. This will never happen as there won't be a reason to use Bitcoin by then.

you mean how LN will "steal" all the TX fees from bitcoin miners? the miners whom they rely on the give LN security? tragedy of the commons?

[Lauda]

So you do believe that raising the price is a form of censorship?

Artificially raising it to some high value would be. The market/people are in control of this now though.

P.S. What do you mean by "diversity of nodes," and how does this diversity make the network less susceptible to DoS attacks?

Here's an example. Let's say that we have two networks and each has only 1000 nodes. Network A has 300 nodes on datacenter 1 and 700 on datacenter 2. Network B has 10 nodes per datacenter. To completely halt network A operations you would have to either DDoS only 2 datacenters, or find other means of shutting them down. To cause the same effect on network B you'd have to invest 50x more effort to do so (exact numbers depend on things such as the DDoS protection).

you mean how LN will "steal" all the TX fees from bitcoin miners? the miners whom they rely on the give LN security? tragedy of the commons?

Without the LN there is no future of mainstream adoption.

[adamstgBit]

you mean how LN will "steal" all the TX fees from bitcoin miners? the miners whom they rely on the give LN security? tragedy of the commons?

Without the LN there is no future of mainstream adoption.
*besides having nodes cost more and more and more ( as the adoption curve will out space tech improvements )*

sure i can agree with that.

but i think if we force it on the user base to soon ( by limiting the cost / node growth )
we risk starving miners from the fees they that they are becoming increasingly dependent on.

but, i guess, i'm fine with the short term plan of segwit asap and we revisit the idea of bumping blocklimit to 2MB next year.
in reality the user base won't be "forced" into using LN untill we reach max capacity again after the segwit bump in capacity and then HOPEFULLY the 2MB hardfork next year will give us even more time.

having limited knowledge over the code, i am concerned with segwit complexity, but I'll have to yield responsibility of carefully weighing the risk reward ratio of deploying segwit to the devs ( i do believe peer review outside of the core team is necessary ).

based on a FEELING, i am concerned with Cores vision of scaling bitcoin, i feel as tho they fall in the 1MB forever camp and will resist any further mainchain scaling beyond segwit.

who's to say what is best? dont look at me.... i just like to speculate about it.

[Lauda]

*besides having nodes cost more and more and more ( as the adoption curve will out space tech improvements )*

sure i can agree with that.

I never said such a thing. You are a strange fellow.

but, i guess, i'm fine with the short term plan of segwit asap and we revisit the idea of bumping blocklimit to 2MB next year.

If everyone agreed to this, we would be fine at the moment. There would be no block size debate in 2016 and we could rest for a bit.

in reality the user base won't be "forced" into using LN untill we reach max capacity again after the segwit bump in capacity and then HOPEFULLY the 2MB hardfork next year will give us even more time.

No matter how many times you bump the block size limit you will always run into this issue. This is because increasing the block size limit is not a solution, it is a band-aid.

[adamstgBit]

You are a strange fellow.

lol yup.

but, i guess, i'm fine with the short term plan of segwit asap and we revisit the idea of bumping blocklimit to 2MB next year.

If everyone agreed to this, we would be fine at the moment. There would be no block size debate in 2016 and we could rest for a bit.

I think largely everyone does agree to segwit,some are more trusting than others when it comes to the safety of deploying such a solution. so we talk about it, and we debate about if 2MB would be safer or whatever, maybe during the debate it comes off as tho we do not support it. but we are in the middle of debate, when it comes down to the choice of segwit or no segwit, we'll take segwit, despite our feelings.

in reality the user base won't be "forced" into using LN untill we reach max capacity again after the segwit bump in capacity and then HOPEFULLY the 2MB hardfork next year will give us even more time.

No matter how many times you bump the block size limit you will always run into this issue. This is because increasing the block size limit is not a solution, it is a band-aid.

meh i disagree about the band-aid analogy.

in 100 years when internet speeds are 10000X faster 1GB blocks will be viable.

[Carlton Banks]

No matter how many times you bump the block size limit you will always run into this issue. This is because increasing the block size limit is not a solution, it is a band-aid.

meh i disagree about the band-aid analogy.

in 100 years when internet speeds are 10000X faster 1GB blocks will be viable.

It helps if we talk about realistic implementation timescales, Adam (I'm not convinced you have a good grasp of what's happened, as a general prospect, up until today. Your predictions about what will happen in 100 years cannot be taken seriously, as your hypothesis for your projections is presumably some variation of "because").

Given today's technology, 1GB blocks would be a bad idea tomorrow. Given today's technology, 2MB would be a bad idea tomorrow. Given next year's tech and SegWit active on the network for several months, 2MB is probably not too bad. Let's hope the internet itself doesn't take any backward steps between now and then, I guess

[bargainbin]

So you do believe that raising the price is a form of censorship?

Artificially raising it to some high value would be. The market/people are in control of this now though.

In that case, I demand my tropical island, it's my natural right to haz it. How dare they sensorship me from buying it for a dollar?

P.S. What do you mean by "diversity of nodes," and how does this diversity make the network less susceptible to DoS attacks?

Here's an example. Let's say that we have two networks and each has only 1000 nodes. Network A has 300 nodes on datacenter 1 and 700 on datacenter 2. Network B has 10 nodes per datacenter. To completely halt network A operations you would have to either DDoS only 2 datacenters, or find other means of shutting them down. To cause the same effect on network B you'd have to invest 50x more effort to do so (exact numbers depend on things such as the DDoS protection).

Thanks for explaining that to me so clearly, I understand now. You have absolutely no idea how the internet works & how DoS attacks work, in particular. Wanna lrn?

You can't DoS a data center, because that's impossible. You DoS an IP address. Each node has its own IP, regardless of whether they live in the same rack or 10,000 miles apart.

On the other hand, most residential internet contracts [and certainly the shit-tier DSL crap which you're concerned about sensorshipping] expressly *prohibit  hosting a service,* so those nodes could be taken down *with a phone call to the provider/at the first sign of increased bandwidth use.*
So now you know.
See how we can resolve our differences, simply by sharing interweb infos that most 10-yr-olds know nowadays?

[adamstgBit]

No matter how many times you bump the block size limit you will always run into this issue. This is because increasing the block size limit is not a solution, it is a band-aid.

meh i disagree about the band-aid analogy.

in 100 years when internet speeds are 10000X faster 1GB blocks will be viable.

It helps if we talk about realistic implementation timescales, Adam (I'm not convinced you have a good grasp of what's happened, as a general prospect, up until today. Your predictions about what will happen in 100 years cannot be taken seriously, as your hypothesis for your projections is presumably some variation of "because").

Given today's technology, 1GB blocks would be a bad idea tomorrow. Given today's technology, 2MB would be a bad idea tomorrow. Given next year's tech and SegWit active on the network for several months, 2MB is probably not too bad. Let's hope the internet doesn't take any backward steps between now and then, I guess

my point is that internet speeds only get better.
a 1GB block might seem crazy to use today.
just like a 1MB block would have seemed crazy 10-20years ago.
saying increasing the block size is a "band-aid" solution, is a catch phrase not an argument.


BTW, with segwit the node bandwidth usages incess by a factor of 2 for what ever the block size.
1MB blocks +segwit = double the bandwidth usages for nodes
2MB blocks +segwit = quadruple the bandwidth usages for nodes
its not magic.

i like segwit, it improves other things at the same time ( altho i think thats because segwit = a dozen changes packed into one release ) and i want to see it happen, i just dont see it being less of a "band-aid" then 2MB.