Bitcoin Forum
October 22, 2020, 07:04:59 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.20.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 [All]
  Print  
Author Topic: Satoshi Nakamoto: "Bitcoin can scale larger than the Visa Network"  (Read 17450 times)
BittBurger
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 924
Merit: 1001


View Profile
March 08, 2016, 08:10:07 AM
Last edit: March 10, 2016, 12:50:13 AM by BittBurger
 #1

Can someone explain to me why there is any debate when Nakamoto himself said:

---------------------
Quote from Mike Hearn:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=149668.msg1596879#msg1596879
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=%22Bitcoin+can+already+scale+much+larger+than+that+with+existing+hardware+for+a+fraction+of+the+cost.%22

  • Satoshi did plan for Bitcoin to compete with PayPal/Visa in traffic volumes.
  • The block size limit was a quick safety hack that was always meant to be removed.
  • In fact, in the very first email he sent me back in April 2009, he said this:

--------------------------------------------------
Email from Satoshi Nakamoto to Mike Hearn:

"Hi Mike,
I'm glad to answer any questions you have. If I get time, I ought to write a FAQ to supplement the paper.
There is only one global chain.

The existing Visa credit card network processes about 15 million Internet purchases per day worldwide. Bitcoin can already scale much larger than that with existing hardware for a fraction of the cost. It never really hits a scale ceiling. If you're interested, I can go over the ways it would cope with extreme size.  By Moore's Law, we can expect hardware speed to be 10 times faster in 5 years and 100 times faster in 10. Even if Bitcoin grows at crazy adoption rates, I think computer speeds will stay ahead of the number of transactions.

I don't anticipate that fees will be needed anytime soon, but if it becomes too burdensome to run a node, it is possible to run a node that only processes transactions that include a transaction fee. The owner of the node would decide the minimum fee they'll accept. Right now, such a node would get nothing, because nobody includes a fee, but if enough nodes did that, then users would get faster acceptance if they include a fee, or slower if they don't. The fee the market would settle on should be minimal. If a node requires a higher fee, that node would be passing up all transactions with lower fees.
It could do more volume and probably make more money by processing as many paying transactions as it can. The transition is not controlled by some human in charge of the system though, just individuals reacting on their own to market forces.

Eventually, most nodes may be run by specialists with multiple GPU cards. For now, it's nice that anyone with a PC can play without worrying about what video card they have, and hopefully it'll stay that way for a while. More computers are shipping with fairly decent GPUs these days, so maybe later we'll transition to that."


~ Satoshi Nakamoto
---------------------------------------
Quote:

"Satoshi said back in 2010 that he intended larger block sizes to be phased in with some simple if (height > flag_day) type logic, theymos has linked to the thread before. I think he would be really amazed at how much debate this thing has become. He never attributed much weight to it, it just didn't seem important to him. And yes, obviously, given the massive forum dramas that have resulted it'd have been nice if he had made the size limit floating from the start like he did with difficulty. However, he didn't and now we have to manage the transition."

~ Mike Hearn, on bitcointalk.org, March 07, 2013, 06:15:30 PM

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1347.msg15366#msg15366
bit.ly/1YqiV41

----------------------------------------
Quote from Satoshi:

It can be phased in, like:

if (blocknumber > 115000)
    maxblocksize = largerlimit

It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.  When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade.


~ Satoshi Nakamoto, on bitcointalk.org, October 04, 2010, 07:48:40 PM

----------------------------------------
----------------------------------------
----------------------------------------

So now,

If Satoshi himself "never really gave block size limit much weight"  (he assumed scaling was an obvious need that would happen quickly and easily), why are a group of developers refusing to scale the protocol... while simultaneously creating a tool that will generate massive income by moving transactions off the block chain, and into their exclusive transaction processing system (Lightening Network)?  Is it any wonder they were given nearly $50 million in VC funding when VC's realized they just took over Bitcoin transaction processing?

Is this not blatantly changing the design and purpose Satoshi gave to Bitcoin (to freely scale to massive sizes, to support on-chain transaction needs).  This seems to be of grave concern, no?

-B-


----------------------------------------
----------------------------------------
----------------------------------------

Bitcoin's true purpose defined in Satoshi's message on the Genesis Block:
"The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks"
View it on the Blockchain | Genesis Block Newspaper Copies
1603393499
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1603393499

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1603393499
Reply with quote  #2

1603393499
Report to moderator
1603393499
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1603393499

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1603393499
Reply with quote  #2

1603393499
Report to moderator
1603393499
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1603393499

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1603393499
Reply with quote  #2

1603393499
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1603393499
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1603393499

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1603393499
Reply with quote  #2

1603393499
Report to moderator
1603393499
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1603393499

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1603393499
Reply with quote  #2

1603393499
Report to moderator
1603393499
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1603393499

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1603393499
Reply with quote  #2

1603393499
Report to moderator
Lauda
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2674
Merit: 2746


Terminated.


View Profile WWW
March 08, 2016, 08:15:31 AM
 #2

Quote
By Moore's Law, we can expect hardware speed to be 10 times faster in 5 years and 100 times faster in 10. Even if Bitcoin grows at crazy adoption rates, I think computer speeds will stay ahead of the number of transactions.
Did it increase by tenfold in 5 years? Not even close. Satoshi did not have the adequate data here.
Quote
Satoshi certainly didn’t do much (if any) analysis of the scaling limitations of Bitcoin.
We need not appeal to authority. Just because Satoshi invented it, that does not mean that he knows the answers to everything.

"The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks"
😼 Bitcoin Core (onion)
sgbett
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2072
Merit: 1060



View Profile
March 08, 2016, 08:24:59 AM
 #3

I can't explain it.

The people who have decided to change Bitcoin by not doing these things keep trying to explain it.

The elephant in the room just will not go away though. The limit was a temporary fix.

"A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution" - Satoshi Nakamoto
*my posts are not investment advice*
CIYAM
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1890
Merit: 1004


Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer


View Profile WWW
March 08, 2016, 08:29:00 AM
Last edit: March 08, 2016, 08:42:29 AM by CIYAM
 #4

The elephant in the room just will not go away though. The limit was a temporary fix.

You do realise that a block as big as 64 MB will take a lot longer than 10 minutes to verify on anything but the most costly hardware?

(so if Satoshi had "got it right" with the original block size then Bitcoin wouldn't be able to even produce blocks as quickly as 10 minutes and no-one but corporations would be able to afford to even run full nodes - but hey who cares about inconvenient truths such as those)

With CIYAM anyone can create 100% generated C++ web applications in literally minutes.

GPG Public Key | 1ciyam3htJit1feGa26p2wQ4aw6KFTejU
Quantus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 883
Merit: 1004



View Profile
March 08, 2016, 08:38:06 AM
 #5

Satoshi was wrong about so many things.

(I am a 1MB block supporter who thinks all users should be using Full-Node clients)
Avoid the XT shills, they only want to destroy bitcoin, their hubris and greed will destroy us.
Know your adversary https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg
Maslate
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1722
Merit: 576



View Profile
March 08, 2016, 08:45:37 AM
 #6

Satoshi did a fork by adding one line, why cannot the Core do the same?

----------------------------------------
Quote from satoshi:
It can be phased in, like:

if (blocknumber > 115000)
    maxblocksize = largerlimit

It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete.  When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade.

~ Satoshi Nakamoto, on bitcointalk.org, October 04, 2010, 07:48:40 PM



Betnomi.300%..
.
█████████████████████   ████   ██
DEPOSIT
BONUS

████   ████
▄▄▄█████████▄▄▄
▄██▄▄▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▄▄██▄

▀▀█▀███████████▀█▀▀
▄▄█▄███████████▄█▄▄
▀█████▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄█████▀
▀█▀▀▀█████████▀▀▀█▀
█▄▀▀▀█████████▀▀▀▄█
▄▀███▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄███▀▄
▀█▄▄▄▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▄▄▄█▀
█▄▀▀▀█████████▀▀▀▄█
▄▀███▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄███▀▄
▀█
▄▄▄▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▄▄▄█▀
▀▀▀█████████▀▀▀
.
UP
TO
.20%..
.
█████████████████████   ████   ██
WEEKLY
CASHBACK

████   ████
▄▄▄█████████▄▄▄
▄██▄▄▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▄▄██▄

▀▀█▀███████████▀█▀▀
▄▄█▄███████████▄█▄▄
▀█████▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄█████▀
▀█▀▀▀█████████▀▀▀█▀
█▄▀▀▀█████████▀▀▀▄█
▄▀███▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄███▀▄
▀█▄▄▄▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▄▄▄█▀
█▄▀▀▀█████████▀▀▀▄█
▄▀███▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄███▀▄
▀█
▄▄▄▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▄▄▄█▀
▀▀▀█████████▀▀▀
.100%..
.
█████████████████████   ████   ██
.
RAKEBACK
.

████   ████
..Play now!..
CIYAM
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1890
Merit: 1004


Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer


View Profile WWW
March 08, 2016, 08:47:27 AM
 #7

Satoshi did a fork by adding one line, why cannot the Core do the same?

Sure - you could change it to say 100 MB or say 10 GB by a very simple coding change.

Result - no-one can verify all the txs in a block in 10 minutes (maybe not even in an hour) - oops - blockchain stops working. But at least it was a "quick fix". Cheesy

Lesson to be learned:

"Just because something can be changed easily doesn't mean that such a change is actually a good idea."

With CIYAM anyone can create 100% generated C++ web applications in literally minutes.

GPG Public Key | 1ciyam3htJit1feGa26p2wQ4aw6KFTejU
Amph
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2450
Merit: 1010



View Profile
March 08, 2016, 08:49:29 AM
 #8

Satoshi was wrong about so many things.

like? he said "expect" not that it will be exactly 10 times higher, so it's still a legit prediction
Zarathustra
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1134
Merit: 1004



View Profile
March 08, 2016, 11:10:43 AM
 #9

Satoshi was wrong about so many things.

like? he said "expect" not that it will be exactly 10 times higher, so it's still a legit prediction

Yes, it doesn't matter if he was exactly right or not about it. The message is clear.
To the shills of the segwit trojan horse even 4 MB is - surprise! - no problem:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/492tnm/if_according_to_core_roadmap_segwit_will_be/d0p0jes?context=3
sgbett
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2072
Merit: 1060



View Profile
March 08, 2016, 11:16:30 AM
 #10

The elephant in the room just will not go away though. The limit was a temporary fix.

You do realise that a block as big as 64 MB will take a lot longer than 10 minutes to verify on anything but the most costly hardware?

(so if Satoshi had "got it right" with the original block size then Bitcoin wouldn't be able to even produce blocks as quickly as 10 minutes and no-one but corporations would be able to afford to even run full nodes - but hey who cares about inconvenient truths such as those)


Premise:
- 64MB blocks are allowed
- 64MB blocks take over 10 minutes to verify

Question:
What financial incentive exists for a miner to produce such a block?



"A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution" - Satoshi Nakamoto
*my posts are not investment advice*
Lethn
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1540
Merit: 1000



View Profile WWW
March 08, 2016, 11:17:11 AM
 #11

That's very interesting, so what he's saying is that the network should have no problems handling an increase in the amount of transactions then. Was this limit put in to prevent people from spamming transactions until there was enough network hashing power to cope with an increase if I'm understanding this correctly?
CIYAM
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1890
Merit: 1004


Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer


View Profile WWW
March 08, 2016, 11:20:30 AM
 #12

Premise:
- 64MB blocks are allowed
- 64MB blocks take over 10 minutes to verify

Question:
What financial incentive exists for a miner to produce such a block?

Am very glad you asked this question.

Let's say you are a rich corporation with money to waste on the most expensive mining rigs, supporting computers and the best bandwidth available on the planet.

You now expend all of those resources to fill up your blocks with 64 MB of txs (create your own txs if you can't find enough from others in the mempool) which basically no-one else can do (and will struggle to even verify in 10 minutes).

You now *own* the blockchain and get all the fees and block rewards - of course that means that Bitcoin is no longer decentralised but of course you'd try and pretend that you were more than one identity wouldn't you. Wink

The people that think getting Bitcoin to compete with the likes of VISA is just a question of increasing block size are naive at best (or at worst are actually being paid by whoever is wanting to gain control).

With CIYAM anyone can create 100% generated C++ web applications in literally minutes.

GPG Public Key | 1ciyam3htJit1feGa26p2wQ4aw6KFTejU
pedrog
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2520
Merit: 1011



View Profile
March 08, 2016, 11:28:18 AM
 #13

The elephant in the room just will not go away though. The limit was a temporary fix.

You do realise that a block as big as 64 MB will take a lot longer than 10 minutes to verify on anything but the most costly hardware?

(so if Satoshi had "got it right" with the original block size then Bitcoin wouldn't be able to even produce blocks as quickly as 10 minutes and no-one but corporations would be able to afford to even run full nodes - but hey who cares about inconvenient truths such as those)


Premise:
- 64MB blocks are allowed
- 64MB blocks take over 10 minutes to verify

Question:
What financial incentive exists for a miner to produce such a block?




A shitload of money...

When we can fill a 64 MB block, or if we will ever fill a 64 MB block, there's probably no subsidy anymore, so miners make money with transactions fees, to collect such fees they need to include transactions in blocks, the more the merrier, big blocks is how they pay their bills, there's your incentive.

sgbett
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2072
Merit: 1060



View Profile
March 08, 2016, 11:29:17 AM
 #14

Premise:
- 64MB blocks are allowed
- 64MB blocks take over 10 minutes to verify

Question:
What financial incentive exists for a miner to produce such a block?

Am very glad you asked this question.

Let's say you are a rich corporation with money to waste on the most expensive mining rigs, supporting computers and the best bandwidth available on the planet.

You now expend all of those resources to fill up your blocks with 64 MB of txs (create your own if you can't find enough in the mempool) which basically no-one else can do (and will struggle to even verify in 10 minutes).

You now *own* the blockchain and get all the fees and block rewards - of course that means that Bitcoin is no longer decentralised but of course you'd try and pretend that you were more than one identity wouldn't you. Wink

The people that think getting Bitcoin to compete with the likes of VISA is just a question of increasing block size are naive at best (or perhaps more likely are being paid by whoever is wanting to gain control).


As a bad actor how do you mitigate SPV mining?

How quickly do you think other miners will ignore your 'malicious' blocks?

If such a malicious actor exists how does a 1MB block size limit stop them from attacking/destroying bitcoin?

"A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution" - Satoshi Nakamoto
*my posts are not investment advice*
sgbett
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2072
Merit: 1060



View Profile
March 08, 2016, 11:31:14 AM
 #15

The elephant in the room just will not go away though. The limit was a temporary fix.

You do realise that a block as big as 64 MB will take a lot longer than 10 minutes to verify on anything but the most costly hardware?

(so if Satoshi had "got it right" with the original block size then Bitcoin wouldn't be able to even produce blocks as quickly as 10 minutes and no-one but corporations would be able to afford to even run full nodes - but hey who cares about inconvenient truths such as those)


Premise:
- 64MB blocks are allowed
- 64MB blocks take over 10 minutes to verify

Question:
What financial incentive exists for a miner to produce such a block?




A shitload of money...

When we can fill a 64 MB block, or if we will ever fill a 64 MB block, there's probably no subsidy anymore, so miners make money with transactions fees, to collect such fees they need to include transactions in blocks, the more the merrier, big blocks is how they pay their bills, there's your incentive.

correct!

So as a rational actor you include as many as you think you can get away with without somebody else beating you to the punch.

"A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution" - Satoshi Nakamoto
*my posts are not investment advice*
CIYAM
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1890
Merit: 1004


Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer


View Profile WWW
March 08, 2016, 11:31:39 AM
 #16

How quickly do you think other miners will ignore your 'malicious' blocks?

If you've changed the rules to say that 64MB blocks are legit then they are not "malicious" by definition (they would be in accordance with the consensus rules) so they can't be ignored.

If such a malicious actor exists how does a 1MB block size limit stop them from attacking/destroying bitcoin?

Because everyone with even fairly average bandwidth and supporting hardware can compete to create the next block (which is what happens now).

The reason that SPV mining is used currently is to try and get a slight advantage that poor bandwidth would otherwise prevent.

With CIYAM anyone can create 100% generated C++ web applications in literally minutes.

GPG Public Key | 1ciyam3htJit1feGa26p2wQ4aw6KFTejU
sgbett
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2072
Merit: 1060



View Profile
March 08, 2016, 11:33:39 AM
 #17

How quickly do you think other miners will ignore your 'malicious' blocks?

If you've changed the rules to say that 64MB blocks are legit then they are not "malicious" by definition (they would be in accordance with the consensus rules).

If such a malicious actor exists how does a 1MB block size limit stop them from attacking/destroying bitcoin?

Because everyone with even fairly average bandwidth and supporting hardware can compete to create the next block (which is what happens now).


Your theoretical bad actor mounts a 51% attack => bitcoin is destroyed.


"A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution" - Satoshi Nakamoto
*my posts are not investment advice*
Lauda
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2674
Merit: 2746


Terminated.


View Profile WWW
March 08, 2016, 11:34:10 AM
Last edit: March 08, 2016, 12:02:14 PM by Lauda
 #18

You do realise that a block as big as 64 MB will take a lot longer than 10 minutes to verify on anything but the most costly hardware?
Actually this can happen at 2 MB block size limit due to the problem of quadratic scaling. Segwit aims to improve on this problem by scaling it down to make it linear. Gavin does acknowledge this as his own proposal (BIP 109) contains a workaround that prevents this from happening (sigops limitation).

Was this limit put in to prevent people from spamming transactions until there was enough network hashing power to cope with an increase if I'm understanding this correctly?
No. The problem is not directly related to the hashing power. You can look at three factors: 1) Storage; 2) Bandwidth; 3) Processing power (for validation).


Update: Corrections (typo at 3rd point).

"The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks"
😼 Bitcoin Core (onion)
psybits
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1386
Merit: 1000


Crypto Addicto


View Profile WWW
March 08, 2016, 11:34:34 AM
 #19

If Satoshi came back and helped solve this debate now that would be something.

CIYAM
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1890
Merit: 1004


Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer


View Profile WWW
March 08, 2016, 11:35:23 AM
 #20

Your theoretical bad actor mounts a 51% attack => bitcoin is destroyed.

That is of course up to them (they might happily continue to reap the benefits of the block rewards and fees).

Of course if they did end up with >50% (you don't actually need 51% but for some reason people are fixated on that number) they might be tempted to take advantage of a huge double-spend opportunity.

With CIYAM anyone can create 100% generated C++ web applications in literally minutes.

GPG Public Key | 1ciyam3htJit1feGa26p2wQ4aw6KFTejU
sgbett
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2072
Merit: 1060



View Profile
March 08, 2016, 11:35:31 AM
 #21

How quickly do you think other miners will ignore your 'malicious' blocks?

If you've changed the rules to say that 64MB blocks are legit then they are not "malicious" by definition (they would be in accordance with the consensus rules) so they can't be ignored.

If such a malicious actor exists how does a 1MB block size limit stop them from attacking/destroying bitcoin?

Because everyone with even fairly average bandwidth and supporting hardware can compete to create the next block (which is what happens now).

The reason that SPV mining is used currently is to try and get a slight advantage that poor bandwidth would otherwise prevent.


You stated that a 64MB block would give control of the blockchain to the bad actor. This is wrong because as soon as the bad actor broadcasts the header every other miner is on an even footing.

"A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution" - Satoshi Nakamoto
*my posts are not investment advice*
CIYAM
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1890
Merit: 1004


Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer


View Profile WWW
March 08, 2016, 11:37:33 AM
 #22

You stated that a 64MB block would give control of the blockchain to the bad actor. This is wrong because as soon as the bad actor broadcasts the header every other miner is on an even footing.

You are forgetting that it takes time to broadcast 64MB (so they could have already mined the next block in advance) and if others are not going to bother validating (which as stated would likely take them more than 10 minutes) then they could easily be tricked into mining on a fork.

It should be noted that the larger that you make the block size the easier such an attack becomes.

With CIYAM anyone can create 100% generated C++ web applications in literally minutes.

GPG Public Key | 1ciyam3htJit1feGa26p2wQ4aw6KFTejU
eternalgloom
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1792
Merit: 1279



View Profile WWW
March 08, 2016, 11:42:59 AM
 #23

Satoshi was wrong about so many things.

like? he said "expect" not that it will be exactly 10 times higher, so it's still a legit prediction
If only it were possible for him to come back and give his opinion on the recent debate Smiley
Yeah, likely never going to happen sadly..

sgbett
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2072
Merit: 1060



View Profile
March 08, 2016, 11:45:39 AM
 #24

You stated that a 64MB block would give control of the blockchain to the bad actor. This is wrong because as soon as the bad actor broadcasts the header every other miner is on an even footing.

You are forgetting that it takes time to broadcast 64MB (and they will have already mined the next block in advance).


How big is the header? How long does it take to broadcast *the header*?

"A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution" - Satoshi Nakamoto
*my posts are not investment advice*
CIYAM
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1890
Merit: 1004


Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer


View Profile WWW
March 08, 2016, 11:45:57 AM
 #25

You should accept the science of software engineering rather than hoping that the "words of a prophet" will solve the scaling issue.

With CIYAM anyone can create 100% generated C++ web applications in literally minutes.

GPG Public Key | 1ciyam3htJit1feGa26p2wQ4aw6KFTejU
CIYAM
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1890
Merit: 1004


Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer


View Profile WWW
March 08, 2016, 11:46:46 AM
 #26

How big is the header? How long does it take to broadcast *the header*?

You only broadcast that to your miners (if you are a pool) not to everyone else (you do know how this stuff works or don't you?).

And as stated before if you don't validate the txs in a block then you are going to be easily tricked into mining on an invalid fork.

With CIYAM anyone can create 100% generated C++ web applications in literally minutes.

GPG Public Key | 1ciyam3htJit1feGa26p2wQ4aw6KFTejU
Lethn
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1540
Merit: 1000



View Profile WWW
March 08, 2016, 11:53:43 AM
 #27

You do realise that a block as big as 64 MB will take a lot longer than 10 minutes to verify on anything but the most costly hardware?
Actually this can happen at 2 MB block size limit due to the problem of quadratic scaling. Segwit aims to improve on this problem by scaling it down to make it linear. Gavin does acknowledge this as his own proposal (BIP 109) contains a workaround that prevents this from happening (sigops limitation).

Was this limit put in to prevent people from spamming transactions until there was enough network hashing power to cope with an increase if I'm understanding this correctly?
No. The problem is not directly related to the hashing power. You can look at three factors: 1) Storage; 2) Bandwidth; 3) Process power (for validation).

Thanks for clearing it up I won't pretend to be an expert on this, it's not my area at all.
Gleb Gamow
In memoriam
VIP
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1428
Merit: 1120



View Profile
March 08, 2016, 12:00:21 PM
 #28

Interesting email!  Cool Cool Cool

Not sure if anybody else caught it, but I believe I uncovered an interesting clue within as to who SN is, with apologies for not disclosing while I conduct further research with hopes of being the first to disclose. That said, feel free to beat me to the punch if you, too, spotted the obvious (at least to me) clue.
sgbett
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2072
Merit: 1060



View Profile
March 08, 2016, 12:08:20 PM
 #29

How big is the header? How long does it take to broadcast *the header*?

You only broadcast that to your miners (if you are a pool) not to everyone else (you do know how this stuff works or don't you?).

And as stated before if you don't validate the txs in a block then you are going to be easily tricked into mining on an invalid fork.


Block 401302: https://blockchain.info/block-index/1085183/000000000000000003ab3fee4bedfd4c8afa723454e322b44b69dd42262ecf9b
This block was mined by Antpool on 2016-03-05 at 17:59:38, it was a "full" block, as you have told me repeatedly it takes longer for big blocks to propagate.

Block 401303: https://blockchain.info/block-index/1085184/000000000000000006910040284ea1769d482a4ab7ea65b30af14aabc2b69749
This block was mined by BW.COM on 2016-03-05 18:00:39, it was an empty block, because the block had not yet propagated to them. They did however, have the header for block 401302.

So, in answer to your question, I don't know exactly how this stuff works, but I know enough.

"A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution" - Satoshi Nakamoto
*my posts are not investment advice*
CIYAM
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1890
Merit: 1004


Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer


View Profile WWW
March 08, 2016, 12:10:07 PM
 #30

This is because they are doing what is being termed as SPV mining (not normal or should I say "proper" mining).

When you mine in this manner you risk ending up on a fork (as happened last year to the Chinese mining pools after a soft-fork).

So if you had huge blocks and incredibly good hardware (and bandwidth within your pool of miners) then you'd just play games with those that do SPV mining and make them all end up on forks (after a while they would simply give up trying).

I hope you are starting to understand that SPV mining is *not good enough* (and the more you scale things up the worse it gets).

With CIYAM anyone can create 100% generated C++ web applications in literally minutes.

GPG Public Key | 1ciyam3htJit1feGa26p2wQ4aw6KFTejU
SpiryGolden
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812
Merit: 500



View Profile
March 08, 2016, 12:17:27 PM
 #31

So lets keep Satoshi Vision real. He gave us Bitcoin. To the community. We wouldn't have a discussion now if it wasn't for attacks back then. So again. Blockstream and Lighting Network are trying to take over and that's why they keep Core developers on their payroll. They want results. Forcing upon users their solution and keep the network attacked and flooded.

Let it be a free market. With 2MB upgrade side chain will exists without any issue, but this time people can choose and not be forced upon. Core will never keep their word on 2MB upgrade.
Gleb Gamow
In memoriam
VIP
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1428
Merit: 1120



View Profile
March 08, 2016, 12:21:18 PM
Last edit: March 08, 2016, 12:41:20 PM by Gleb Gamow
 #32

Upon a second read-through, I'm somewhat certain that SN didn't pen that email, with perhaps MH penning it himself to perhaps advance an agenda. The prose simply doesn't feel Nakamoto-esque, that and why did Satoshi Nakamoto opted for no double space after a full stop?  Shocked At first, I thought it was an anomaly due to perhaps the choice of email service used in sending the message disallowed the practice, but that doesn't seem to be the case since there's one example within depicting a DS after a FS.



EDIT: Call me crazy, but upon reading some of Mike's early posts, it feels to me like SN's email could very well have been penned by Mike. Try it yourself: Read the email again, then read a few posts by SN and few posts by MH and see what you come up with.

EDIT 2: Speaking of a double space after a full stop, it looks like Gavin mostly ended the practice of such shortly after it was revealed that SN employed the practice.
Lauda
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2674
Merit: 2746


Terminated.


View Profile WWW
March 08, 2016, 12:23:39 PM
 #33

So lets keep Satoshi Vision real. He gave us Bitcoin. To the community. We wouldn't have a discussion now if it wasn't for attacks back then. So again. Blockstream and Lighting Network are trying to take over and that's why they keep Core developers on their payroll. They want results. Forcing upon users their solution and keep the network attacked and flooded.
Pure FUD. The mistakes in your argument:
1) Only a small portion of Core contributors are paid by Blockstream
2) The Lightning Network is not a product of Blockstream (they only have 1 developer working on it). There are other independent teams that are working on their own implementations of this.
3) The network gets attacked by third parties who either want to push their agenda (recently possibly done by the 'forkers') or harm the network overall.

Let it be a free market. With 2MB upgrade side chain will exists without any issue, but this time people can choose and not be forced upon. Core will never keep their word on 2MB upgrade.
They never promised an upgrade to 2 MB block size limit.

"The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks"
😼 Bitcoin Core (onion)
SpiryGolden
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812
Merit: 500



View Profile
March 08, 2016, 12:46:27 PM
 #34

So lets keep Satoshi Vision real. He gave us Bitcoin. To the community. We wouldn't have a discussion now if it wasn't for attacks back then. So again. Blockstream and Lighting Network are trying to take over and that's why they keep Core developers on their payroll. They want results. Forcing upon users their solution and keep the network attacked and flooded.
Pure FUD. The mistakes in your argument:
1) Only a small portion of Core contributors are paid by Blockstream
2) The Lightning Network is not a product of Blockstream (they only have 1 developer working on it). There are other independent teams that are working on their own implementations of this.
3) The network gets attacked by third parties who either want to push their agenda (recently possibly done by the 'forkers') or harm the network overall.

Let it be a free market. With 2MB upgrade side chain will exists without any issue, but this time people can choose and not be forced upon. Core will never keep their word on 2MB upgrade.
They never promised an upgrade to 2 MB block size limit.

Well even if you didn't wanted , you still proven my point. It would have been too obvious to go full retard. They will take Bitcoin , piece by piece slowly but surely. Do I have to learn you tactics of takeovers? You have any idea how big system or corporation is been taken over and not to trigger any big alarms? . Bitcoin will be owned by Blockstream and VC and Bank sponsored company.

We need to move on from the corrupted hands of Bitcoin Core as soon as possible for a free payment system and not their play toy.

P.S: So a roadmap is not a promise? It is in their roadmap. But somewhere in 2017 ...2018 or maybe never, enough time so their plans to get in place and gain momentum. How else they will push up their sidechains? Everyone will ignore them as long as Bitcoin chain is free and fast and cheap to use. It so obvious. It's simple and basic economics.
franky1
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2926
Merit: 1780



View Profile
March 08, 2016, 01:01:12 PM
 #35

We need not appeal to authority. Just because Satoshi invented it, that does not mean that he knows the answers to everything.

just because blockstream hold the commit keys of one of the 12 implementations does not mean we should bow down to only their wishes.
or are you happy that blockstream is an authority and they have god like knowledge. by the way have you read a line of code yet to satisfy your own mind that bitcoin is not wrote in java? or do you have to go run and ask a few blockstreamers to spoonfeed you the info


I DO NOT TRADE OR ACT AS ESCROW ON THIS FORUM EVER.
Please do your own research & respect what is written here as both opinion & information gleaned from experience. many people replying with insults but no on-topic content substance, automatically are 'facepalmed' and yawned at
SpiryGolden
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812
Merit: 500



View Profile
March 08, 2016, 01:11:51 PM
 #36

We need not appeal to authority. Just because Satoshi invented it, that does not mean that he knows the answers to everything.

just because blockstream hold the commit keys of one of the 12 implementations does not mean we should bow down to only their wishes.
or are you happy that blockstream is an authority and they have god like knowledge. by the way have you read a line of code yet to satisfy your own mind that bitcoin is not wrote in java? or do you have to go run and ask a few blockstreamers to spoonfeed you the info



A+++. It is me or Bitcoin Core and Core supporters are starting to be somehow in Blockstream pockets. It is so obvious. Exactly like a elephant in a small , small room.
Lauda
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2674
Merit: 2746


Terminated.


View Profile WWW
March 08, 2016, 01:46:46 PM
 #37

Well even if you didn't wanted , you still proven my point. It would have been too obvious to go full retard. They will take Bitcoin , piece by piece slowly but surely. Do I have to learn you tactics of takeovers? You have any idea how big system or corporation is been taken over and not to trigger any big alarms? . Bitcoin will be owned by Blockstream and VC and Bank sponsored company.
I've proved nothing. Bitcoin can't be owned by anyone. Your post makes no sense if you are in support of Classic which has strong support from another nice company (Coinbase). I wonder why.

We need to move on from the corrupted hands of Bitcoin Core as soon as possible for a free payment system and not their play toy.
No. Nothing is free in life.

P.S: So a roadmap is not a promise? It is in their roadmap. But somewhere in 2017 ...2018 or maybe never, enough time so their plans to get in place and gain momentum. How else they will push up their sidechains? Everyone will ignore them as long as Bitcoin chain is free and fast and cheap to use. It so obvious. It's simple and basic economics.
In what roadmap does it say that there will be a 2 MB block size limit? They already have their commercial sidechain and the elements used in it are open source.

"The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks"
😼 Bitcoin Core (onion)
sgbett
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2072
Merit: 1060



View Profile
March 08, 2016, 01:49:48 PM
 #38

This is because they are doing what is being termed as SPV mining (not normal or should I say "proper" mining).

When you mine in this manner you risk ending up on a fork (as happened last year to the Chinese mining pools after a soft-fork).

So if you had huge blocks and incredibly good hardware (and bandwidth within your pool of miners) then you'd just play games with those that do SPV mining and make them all end up on forks (after a while they would simply give up trying).

I hope you are starting to understand that SPV mining is *not good enough* (and the more you scale things up the worse it gets).


A couple posts back I had to correct your flawed understanding of SPV mining. If there is something I have said that is factually incorrect please refute it with evidence and not opinion.

SPV mining is perfectly good at mitigating the scenario you described in which a malicious actor creates a poison block on order to "own" the blockchain and collect all the rewards. Now that you have the correct understanding of how SPV works I think it should be clear to you.

Your premise that this bad actor would play games with SPV miners, was covered by my second question:

How quickly do you think other miners will ignore your 'malicious' blocks?

You said they had to accept the blocks because they were valid. However in the situation where the bad actor is gaming SPV nodes, then it quickly becomes obvious that although the block may be valid, the miner is malicious. So whilst the block may be valid, it is in the miners own best economic interest to reject all blocks from the bad actor. It is the bad actor who is forked off the network.

The reality of whether SPV mining is good enough is complicated and involves very many variables. So neither you nor I can make subjective judgements about its overall efficacy.

I would invite you to consider what happens with transaction fees in a 64MB full block scenario, and whether the risk/reward for SPV mining still favours mining empty blocks?

In doing so consider also these fairly reasonable assumptions:

64MB is a long way off even by the most optimistic big block proposal (e.g. in BIP101 we wouldn't hit it for another decade) work has already been done reducing the bandwidth necessary for block propagation, and thus the time. For those 64MB blocks to be full, then it would have to be viable for miners to be filling them. The size of blocks is self limiting according to the risk reward of including transactions vs being orphaned.

In 2026 the block reward is predicted to be 3.125BTC

If a 64MB block could be mined in a reasonable timeframe such that the chance of orphan was low enough to be acceptable to miners.

If the fee density remained consistent at 10k satoshis/k then the total fees would be 6.4BTC

FWIW, I think the incentive to mine an empty block is somewhat reduced as a result of scaling.

"A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution" - Satoshi Nakamoto
*my posts are not investment advice*
CIYAM
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1890
Merit: 1004


Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer


View Profile WWW
March 08, 2016, 01:51:50 PM
 #39

A couple posts back I had to correct your flawed understanding of SPV mining. If there is something I have said that is factually incorrect please refute it with evidence and not opinion.

Sorry - I had to ignore the rest of your rubbish wall of text to ask you to repeat your correction of *my flawed understanding* (of anything to do with Bitcoin - little own SPV mining).

Please explain (I know - it is hard for you to even put more than one sentence of any logical value together but please try)?

(you are starting to act like that idiot @franky1 - maybe you are an alt of his - as his habit is to post walls of text starting with fallacies)

With CIYAM anyone can create 100% generated C++ web applications in literally minutes.

GPG Public Key | 1ciyam3htJit1feGa26p2wQ4aw6KFTejU
CIYAM
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1890
Merit: 1004


Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer


View Profile WWW
March 08, 2016, 02:07:44 PM
 #40

Hmm.. having troubles coming up with a response (or are you too busy getting your ass whipped by CarltonBanks in the other topic). Cheesy

With CIYAM anyone can create 100% generated C++ web applications in literally minutes.

GPG Public Key | 1ciyam3htJit1feGa26p2wQ4aw6KFTejU
calkob
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 924
Merit: 507


View Profile
March 08, 2016, 02:27:46 PM
 #41

It is prophetic when we realize that he spelled "Bitcoin" with a capital "B"

It's like he could see the future or something


He could he was from 2120.  Thats the year that the Node wars start.  as humanity battle it out of node fees being introduced.... Grin
sgbett
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2072
Merit: 1060



View Profile
March 08, 2016, 02:40:30 PM
 #42

A couple posts back I had to correct your flawed understanding of SPV mining. If there is something I have said that is factually incorrect please refute it with evidence and not opinion.

Sorry - I had to ignore the rest of your rubbish wall of text to ask you to repeat your correction of *my flawed understanding* (of anything to do with Bitcoin - little own SPV mining).

Please explain (I know - it is hard for you to even put more than one sentence of any logical value together but please try)?

(you are starting to act like that idiot @franky1 - maybe you are an alt of his - as his habit is to post walls of text starting with fallacies)


In one sentence Smiley

You only broadcast that to your miners (if you are a pool) not to everyone else (you do know how this stuff works or don't you?).


"A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution" - Satoshi Nakamoto
*my posts are not investment advice*
CIYAM
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1890
Merit: 1004


Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer


View Profile WWW
March 08, 2016, 02:43:43 PM
 #43

In one sentence Smiley

You only broadcast that to your miners (if you are a pool) not to everyone else (you do know how this stuff works or don't you?).

And?

Let me try and enlighten you: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Network

Quote
Anyone who is generating will collect valid received transactions and work on including them in a block. When someone does find a block, they send an inv containing it to all of their peers, as above. It works the same as transactions.

And then this:

Quote
Thin SPV Clients

BIP 0037 introduced support for thin or lite clients by way of Simple Payment Verification. SPV clients do not need to download the full block contents to verify the existence of funds in the blockchain, but rely on the chain of block headers and bloom filters to obtain the data they need from other nodes. This method of client communication allows high security trustless communication with full nodes, but at the expensive of some privacy as the peers can deduce which addresses the SPV client is seeking information about.

MultiBit and Bitcoin Wallet work in this fashion using the library bitcoinj as their foundation.

Perhaps that might help in particular (if you need any further "spoon feeding" then feel free to ask for it).

So not only have you demonstrated that you don't understand how the Bitcoin protocol works but you have also made a complete idiot of yourself trying to discredit me - still want to pursue this line of attack?

With CIYAM anyone can create 100% generated C++ web applications in literally minutes.

GPG Public Key | 1ciyam3htJit1feGa26p2wQ4aw6KFTejU
sgbett
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2072
Merit: 1060



View Profile
March 08, 2016, 03:04:08 PM
 #44

I am always ready to learn, and quite happy to concede when I am wrong about something.

There are two things I would like specifically to learn, that you might be able to explain.

1. Where in the quoted text you provided is your assertion supported?

2. How and/or why BW.com would mine an empty block (401303) if they were not mining on just the block header from block 401302 which was mined by Antpool.

"A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution" - Satoshi Nakamoto
*my posts are not investment advice*
CIYAM
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1890
Merit: 1004


Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer


View Profile WWW
March 08, 2016, 03:06:50 PM
 #45

I am always ready to learn, and quite happy to concede when I am wrong about something.

Strange, but although you are ignorant and keep posting rubbish, you haven't conceded a single thing yet keep trying to attack me with your stupid nonsensical posts.

If you aren't @franky1's alt then you ought to team up with him as between the two of you perhaps you might almost have a quarter of a brain. Cheesy

Unfortunately it is pointless to try and explain SPV mining to someone as dense as you as you simply can't grasp it (no matter how many times it is explained to you).

Perhaps try hiring a "brain coach" or the like?
(some people might even coach you out of pity for free - but that ain't me as I have a rather low tolerance of morons)

With CIYAM anyone can create 100% generated C++ web applications in literally minutes.

GPG Public Key | 1ciyam3htJit1feGa26p2wQ4aw6KFTejU
sgbett
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2072
Merit: 1060



View Profile
March 08, 2016, 03:35:03 PM
 #46

I am always ready to learn, and quite happy to concede when I am wrong about something.

Strange - but although you are ignorant and keep posting rubbish you haven't conceded a single thing - yet keep trying to attack me with your stupid nonsensical posts.

If you aren't @franky1's alt then you ought to team up with him as between the two of you perhaps you might almost have a quarter of a brain. Cheesy

Unfortunately it is pointless to try and explain SPV mining to someone as dense as you as you simply can't grasp it (no matter how many times it is explained to you).

Perhaps try hiring a "brain coach" or the like?
(some people might even coach you out of pity for free - but that ain't me as I have a rather low tolerance of morons)


Yes, I haven't conceded that I am wrong because you said:

You only broadcast that to your miners (if you are a pool) not to everyone else (you do know how this stuff works or don't you?).

Which is contradicted by evidence that I have posted (rubbish you called it) that suggests this is not true.

I am open minded enough to accept that I have misunderstood something. That every source I have was equally mistaken. That the evidence I have provided I have misinterpreted. (There is a chance BW.COM actually had the full block 401302, but just decided to mine an empty block, for example)

I'm wide open to be proven wrong, and I am more than happy to concede that you were correct about block headers only being sent to miners within your pool (though this does sound a bit like some kind of block withholding attack).

Given the whole premise of your argument about 64MB blocks is based on what *appears to be* flawed understanding, I think its fairly important to establish just exactly how SPV mining works in this regard, so that others that may read this thread don't make the same mistakes as I may have done.

"A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution" - Satoshi Nakamoto
*my posts are not investment advice*
CIYAM
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1890
Merit: 1004


Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer


View Profile WWW
March 08, 2016, 03:40:16 PM
 #47

SPV mining *is not proper mining*.

Is that not clear to you?

It is irrelevant whether or not they use the SPV protocol to do that so (and in fact they don't as they use the "relay network" which existed a long time before SPV support was added to Bitcoin) so your desperate attempts at trying to discredit me are failing and just making you look even more stupid.

If you mine that way then you end up on a fork (as has already happened) and as I have already tried to explain (but seemingly you are incapable of understanding) the larger you make the blocks then the easier it would be to trick other miners into mining on such forks.

And btw - the only *flawed understanding* here is your own.

With CIYAM anyone can create 100% generated C++ web applications in literally minutes.

GPG Public Key | 1ciyam3htJit1feGa26p2wQ4aw6KFTejU
Cuidler
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 294
Merit: 250


View Profile
March 08, 2016, 03:41:05 PM
 #48

The only way to find out whether Bitcoin can scale larger than the Visa network is remove blocksize limit and watch free market to find what blocks are miners able to handle. The ones who supporting artifical limit capping are regulators (tyrans) who dont believe in free market finding optimal and perfect solution by itselves, or protectionists who believe basically every piece of hardware like Rasberry PIs should be capable to be used as full nodes - ignoring the reality every computing intensive software trying to be competetive on market must have mnimum requirements set to about average home PC spec otherwise it become unused over time.

.Liqui Exchange.Trade and earn 24% / year on BTC, LTC, ETH
....Brand NEW..........................................Payouts every 24h. Learn more at official thread
QuestionAuthority
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2156
Merit: 1391


You lead and I'll watch you walk away.


View Profile
March 08, 2016, 03:47:18 PM
 #49

I can't believe how many people are blaspheming our lord and savior Satoshi in this thread. You can't call him a visionary genius in one breath and a dumbass in another.

Just raise the blocksize already and see what happens. If it fails then it was always a stupid idea and fuck Bitcoin. If it succeeds then cheer in the streets about how brilliant you all are for investing in this wonderful new techonology. What ever you bitches do, don't spend the next 2 years pissing and moaning about the problem while taking no action.

CIYAM
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1890
Merit: 1004


Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer


View Profile WWW
March 08, 2016, 03:48:37 PM
 #50

Just raise the blocksize already and see what happens.

Why - because you say so?

Hey - let's just raise it to 64MB then see what happens. Cheesy

(who cares if billions of dollars are destroyed - what's important is that we have fun)

With CIYAM anyone can create 100% generated C++ web applications in literally minutes.

GPG Public Key | 1ciyam3htJit1feGa26p2wQ4aw6KFTejU
QuestionAuthority
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2156
Merit: 1391


You lead and I'll watch you walk away.


View Profile
March 08, 2016, 03:51:22 PM
 #51

Just raise the blocksize already and see what happens.

Why - because you say so?

Hey - let's just raise it to 64MB then as see what happens. Cheesy


Well fuck dude. No one is doing shit except bitching at each other. Make some god damn decision already.

CIYAM
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1890
Merit: 1004


Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer


View Profile WWW
March 08, 2016, 03:52:30 PM
 #52

Well fuck dude. No one is doing shit except bitching at each other. Make some god damn decision already.

There is plenty of stuff going on - it is just the idiots on this forum (who are mostly seemingly paid by Gavin's supporters) who need to have a block size increase *this week*.

In the "real world" no-one is even using Bitcoin for much at all (do all your family and friends use it for daily txs?).

Supposedly according to Mike Hearn it should already have died yet strangely enough the price is still over 400 USD (higher than when he declared it to be dead in the first place).

With CIYAM anyone can create 100% generated C++ web applications in literally minutes.

GPG Public Key | 1ciyam3htJit1feGa26p2wQ4aw6KFTejU
road to morocco
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56
Merit: 0


View Profile
March 08, 2016, 03:54:19 PM
 #53

Just raise the blocksize already and see what happens.

Why - because you say so?

Hey - let's just raise it to 64MB then see what happens. Cheesy

What do you think would happen? People who didn't spam 1MB blocks would suddenly want to spend 64 times as much money to spam the 64MB blocks?
QuestionAuthority
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2156
Merit: 1391


You lead and I'll watch you walk away.


View Profile
March 08, 2016, 03:54:33 PM
 #54

Well fuck dude. No one is doing shit except bitching at each other. Make some god damn decision already.

There is plenty of stuff going on - it is just the idiots on this forum (who are mostly seemingly paid by Gavin's supporters) who need to have a block size increase *this week*.


So what's going to happen? What can we expect? More rage quits? More secret meetings? You yourself have called for the miners to take action. Is that going to happen?

CIYAM
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1890
Merit: 1004


Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer


View Profile WWW
March 08, 2016, 03:56:08 PM
 #55

So what's going to happen? What can we expect? More rage quits? More secret meetings? You yourself have called for the miners to take action. Is that going to happen?

It seems that the miners are mostly backing Bitcoin Core but I am not acting on behalf of Bitcoin Core (as I'm sure many want to accuse me of).

At the end of the day it is up to them as to whether a fork happens or not.

One thing I do know about is Chinese (as I live in China) and that is that they do not co-operate with each other (something that many westerners that come to business here are initially rather surprised at considering that they have the world's largest population for a single country).

With CIYAM anyone can create 100% generated C++ web applications in literally minutes.

GPG Public Key | 1ciyam3htJit1feGa26p2wQ4aw6KFTejU
QuestionAuthority
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2156
Merit: 1391


You lead and I'll watch you walk away.


View Profile
March 08, 2016, 03:58:23 PM
 #56

So what's going to happen? What can we expect? More rage quits? More secret meetings? You yourself have called for the miners to take action. Is that going to happen?

It seems that the miners are mostly backing Bitcoin Core but I am not acting on behalf of Bitcoin Core (as I'm sure many want to accuse me of).

At the end of the day it is up to them as to whether a fork happens or not.

One thing I do know about is Chinese (as I live in China) - they do not co-operate with each other.


Do you know how much longer this two year old discussion/decision is going to take to implement?

CIYAM
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1890
Merit: 1004


Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer


View Profile WWW
March 08, 2016, 04:00:01 PM
 #57

Do you know how much longer this two year old discussion/decision is going to take to implement?

From what I gather the SegWit stuff should be able to be done in a couple of months and then we'd expect further improvements later this year (and maybe a hard fork early to mid next year).

If this is handled properly (and not with the "kicking the can" approach that Gavin and others keep trying to push) then this should become a non-issue within a year or so.

With CIYAM anyone can create 100% generated C++ web applications in literally minutes.

GPG Public Key | 1ciyam3htJit1feGa26p2wQ4aw6KFTejU
YarkoL
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 997
Merit: 1008



View Profile
March 08, 2016, 04:03:41 PM
 #58

That's very interesting, so what he's saying is that the network should have no problems handling an increase in the amount of transactions then. Was this limit put in to prevent people from spamming transactions until there was enough network hashing power to cope with an increase if I'm understanding this correctly?

Here's some more interesting early history

For what it's worth: 

I'm the guy who went over the blockchain stuff in Satoshi's first cut of the bitcoin code.  Satoshi didn't have a 1MB limit in it. The limit was originally Hal Finney's idea.  Both Satoshi and I objected that it wouldn't scale at 1MB.  Hal was concerned about a potential DoS attack though, and after discussion, Satoshi agreed.  The 1MB limit was there by the time Bitcoin launched.  But all 3 of us agreed that 1MB had to be temporary because it would never scale.


Unlike current Core devs, Satoshi was not obsessed by adversaries.
He thought Moore's law would keep up with the scalability demands, and
he was ok with validation restricted to specialized nodes "with multiple GPU cards" as
he puts it in the message to Hearn.

“God does not play dice"
CIYAM
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1890
Merit: 1004


Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer


View Profile WWW
March 08, 2016, 04:06:58 PM
 #59

He thought Moore's law would keep up with the scalability demands...

Moore's law has never applied to bandwidth (so if Satoshi really thought that then clearly he wasn't a genius was he).

Or perhaps you think that because Satoshi could never be wrong then if he said that "Moore's Law" applies to bandwidth it actually does?

With CIYAM anyone can create 100% generated C++ web applications in literally minutes.

GPG Public Key | 1ciyam3htJit1feGa26p2wQ4aw6KFTejU
QuestionAuthority
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2156
Merit: 1391


You lead and I'll watch you walk away.


View Profile
March 08, 2016, 04:08:10 PM
 #60

Do you know how much longer this two year old discussion/decision is going to take to implement?

From what I gather the SegWit stuff should be able to be done in a couple of months and then we'd expect further improvements later this year (and maybe a hard fork early to mid next year).

If this is handled properly (and not with the "kicking the can" approach that Gavin and others keep trying to push) then this should become a non-issue within a year or so.


If that schedule actually happens that's great. Maybe I just have too much faith in Bitcoin. I don't think it can be broken or destroyed that easily. Even by someone as self important and manipulative as Andresen.

CIYAM
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1890
Merit: 1004


Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer


View Profile WWW
March 08, 2016, 04:09:57 PM
 #61

I don't think it can be broken or destroyed that easily. Even by someone as self important and manipulative as Andresen.

I hope you are right (and do think that it is more likely that Bitcoin will get through this tough time and end up even more resilient because of that).

With CIYAM anyone can create 100% generated C++ web applications in literally minutes.

GPG Public Key | 1ciyam3htJit1feGa26p2wQ4aw6KFTejU
Cuidler
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 294
Merit: 250


View Profile
March 08, 2016, 04:14:15 PM
 #62

At the end of the day it is up to them as to whether a fork happens or not.

Miners need to be sure the market accept the fork change - the ten-hundred thousands of individual Bitcoin miners act overall rationally after all, thats why no rush change is likely unless something needs to be fixed immediately.


From what I gather the SegWit stuff should be able to be done in a couple of months and then we'd expect further improvements later this year (and maybe a hard fork early to mid next year).

The changes to the code/structures are so big with SegWit, much more testing is necessary. Fortunatelly Bitcoin Classic does not have plans for SegWit in near future, thus the likelihood of SegWit activation this year is small - but it is good thing - enought time for proper testing for bugless implementation.

.Liqui Exchange.Trade and earn 24% / year on BTC, LTC, ETH
....Brand NEW..........................................Payouts every 24h. Learn more at official thread
CIYAM
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1890
Merit: 1004


Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer


View Profile WWW
March 08, 2016, 04:16:29 PM
 #63

The changes to the code/structures are so big with SegWit, much more testing is necessary. Fortunatelly Bitcoin Classic does not have plans for SegWit in near future, thus the likelihood of SegWit activation this year is small - but it is good thing - enought time for proper testing for bugless implemenatin.

Actually that is rubbish - the amount of code for SegWit is around 500 lines (which is not very much as I often write that much in a day) and it has been in testing for months.

Stop trying to shill for Bitcoin Classic - it is just another attempt by Gavin to take over control of Bitcoin.

Gavin is hoping that everyone is going to want to see "The Return Of The King" but I think that most of us actually would prefer to listen to a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Farewell_to_Kings.

With CIYAM anyone can create 100% generated C++ web applications in literally minutes.

GPG Public Key | 1ciyam3htJit1feGa26p2wQ4aw6KFTejU
YarkoL
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 997
Merit: 1008



View Profile
March 08, 2016, 04:20:35 PM
 #64

He thought Moore's law would keep up with the scalability demands...

Moore's law has never applied to bandwidth (so if Satoshi really thought that then clearly he wasn't a genius was he).

Or perhaps you think that because Satoshi could never be wrong then if he said that "Moore's Law" applies to bandwidth it actually does?


You can read his thoughts in the opening post, although they are
subject to different interpretations.

Bandwidth is just one factor in validation.

Satoshi had profound insight into systemic dynamics, and I wouldn't
hesitate to call him a genius. But I don't think he was omniscient.

“God does not play dice"
CIYAM
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1890
Merit: 1004


Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer


View Profile WWW
March 08, 2016, 04:24:18 PM
 #65

Bandwidth is just one factor in validation.

Moore's law has actually begun to fall down in a number of ways (perhaps "storage" being the only one that now still stands even though initially it was only supposed to refer to computing power).

This has been in part due to the 3GHz limit that CPUs can operate at (without requiring seriously expensive cooling) and the fact that bandwidth has actually never even followed such a trend (instead it tends to jump every few years by quite a bit but then stagnate for quite a while after that).

Most improvements in processing speed these days are made through multi-threading (which can be applied to block validation) but that doesn't help when you are doing serialisation of information.

With CIYAM anyone can create 100% generated C++ web applications in literally minutes.

GPG Public Key | 1ciyam3htJit1feGa26p2wQ4aw6KFTejU
Cuidler
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 294
Merit: 250


View Profile
March 08, 2016, 04:32:07 PM
 #66

The changes to the code/structures are so big with SegWit, much more testing is necessary. Fortunatelly Bitcoin Classic does not have plans for SegWit in near future, thus the likelihood of SegWit activation this year is small - but it is good thing - enought time for proper testing for bugless implemenatin.

Actually that is rubbish - the amount of code for SegWit is around 500 lines (which is not very much as I often write that much in a day) and it has been in testing for months.

What about the recent unexpected fork in SegWig testbed then?
When you find unexpected bug in your code, my experience says test everything twice again to reduce the chance every part of code can not contain bug in unusual circumstances you did not foresee but is possible.

PS: Not all 500 lines are equally complicated to test Wink

.Liqui Exchange.Trade and earn 24% / year on BTC, LTC, ETH
....Brand NEW..........................................Payouts every 24h. Learn more at official thread
valiz
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 471
Merit: 250


BTC trader


View Profile
March 08, 2016, 04:32:49 PM
 #67

Can someone explain to me why there is any debate when Nakamoto himself said:

Quote
The existing Visa credit card network processes about 15 million Internet purchases per day worldwide. Bitcoin can already scale much larger than that with existing hardware for a fraction of the cost. It never really hits a scale ceiling. If you're interested, I can go over the ways it would cope with extreme size.  By Moore's Law, we can expect hardware speed to be 10 times faster in 5 years and 100 times faster in 10. Even if Bitcoin grows at crazy adoption rates, I think computer speeds will stay ahead of the number of transactions.
Assumption #1 from 2009 : By Moore's Law, we can expect hardware speed to be 10 times faster in 5 years and 100 times faster in 10.
If this assumption is on track, then, by now, hardware speed should be 25 times faster than in 2009. Is Satoshi correct on this one?

Quote
I don't anticipate that fees will be needed anytime soon, but if it becomes too burdensome to run a node, it is possible to run a node that only processes transactions that include a transaction fee. The owner of the node would decide the minimum fee they'll accept. Right now, such a node would get nothing, because nobody includes a fee, but if enough nodes did that, then users would get faster acceptance if they include a fee, or slower if they don't. The fee the market would settle on should be minimal. If a node requires a higher fee, that node would be passing up all transactions with lower fees. It could do more volume and probably make more money by processing as many paying transactions as it can. The transition is not controlled by some human in charge of the system though, just individuals reacting on their own to market forces.
Assumption #2 from 2009: 1 MINER = 1 NODE (all miners run full nodes and all full nodes are mining)
Is Satoshi correct on this one?

Quote
Eventually, most nodes may be run by specialists with multiple GPU cards. For now, it's nice that anyone with a PC can play without worrying about what video card they have, and hopefully it'll stay that way for a while. More computers are shipping with fairly decent GPUs these days, so maybe later we'll transition to that.
Assumption #3 from 2009: Best mining technology will be GPU's.
Is Satoshi correct on this one?

If all 3 assumptions made in 2009 by Satoshi are correct, then Bitcoin may scale like VISA. Otherwise, Satoshi is wrong and it may not scale the way it was originally intended to.

Let's elaborate on the scenarios:
#1 correct, #2 correct, #3 correct: Bitcoin scales like VISA, yay!!
#1 correct, #2 correct, #3 incorrect: Bitcoin scales like VISA, but only miners with ASIC's have nodes => few nodes = centralization = bad
#1 correct, #2 incorrect, #3 correct: Bitcoin scales like VISA, but nodes are run only by volunteers, miners don't exactly need them => few nodes = centralization = bad
#1 correct, #2 incorrect, #3 incorrect: Bitcoin scales like VISA, but a few mining pools and ASIC farms remain, nodes are ran mainly by volunteers => few nodes = centralization = bad
#1 incorrect, #2 correct, #3 correct: The miners with the fastest CPU's and bandwith get an increasing advantage as Bitcoin scales, eventually few nodes = centralization = bad
#1 incorrect, #2 correct, #3 incorrect: The miners with the best ASIC's and bandwith get an increasing advantage as Bitcoin scales, eventually few nodes = centralization = bad
#1 incorrect, #2 incorrect, #3 correct: As Bitcoin scales, nodes ran by volunteers disappear, only a few nodes ran by some of the miners remain = centralization = bad
#1 incorrect, #2 incorrect, #3 incorrect: As Bitcoin scales, nodes ran by volunteers disappear, only a few nodes ran by some big ASIC farms or mining pools remain = centralization = bad

So, if Satoshi is wrong on one of the 3 assumptions, then we have to trade "scaling" with "centralization". VISA is already scaled and centralized. So, if we scale Bitcoin like this, then Bitcoin becomes just like VISA, or an inefficient competitor to VISA.

12c3DnfNrfgnnJ3RovFpaCDGDeS6LMkfTN "who lives by QE dies by QE"
CIYAM
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1890
Merit: 1004


Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer


View Profile WWW
March 08, 2016, 04:36:15 PM
 #68

Bitcoin cannot scale to work like VISA with the way it works because VISA isn't doing POW nor are its nodes designed to not trust one another.

If you want to use VISA - why not use VISA?
(it's already there and it works perfectly right now)

With CIYAM anyone can create 100% generated C++ web applications in literally minutes.

GPG Public Key | 1ciyam3htJit1feGa26p2wQ4aw6KFTejU
Kprawn
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1904
Merit: 1068


View Profile
March 08, 2016, 04:37:01 PM
 #69

Whatever his mistakes in what he said back in the day, he is still a brilliant entity. {He / She / It / They} If he made no mistakes, I would have classed him as a alien or a god, but he is human. The

scaled block size are there for a reason... to grow with adoption and to be adapted as the need exists. Classic proponents wants us to believe, that need is NOW and Core followers seem to think, kicking

the can down the road, will be the best option to follow. I think, the doubt about scaling solutions are a bigger threat than the actual change that needs to be done to address the current need.  Sad

THE FIRST DECENTRALIZED & PLAYER-OWNED CASINO
.EARNBET..EARN BITCOIN: DIVIDENDS
FOR-LIFETIME & MUCH MORE.
. BET WITH: BTCETHEOSLTCBCHWAXXRPBNB
.JOIN US: GITLABTWITTERTELEGRAM
valiz
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 471
Merit: 250


BTC trader


View Profile
March 08, 2016, 04:46:48 PM
 #70

We need to increase the blocksize NOW or the fees rise dramatically and the transactions become unreliable, this will hinder adoption.

Issue #1: The transaction fees don't appear to be rising dramatically.
Issue #2: The transactions that have a decent fee are reliable.
Issue #3: Fees are very small compared to the amounts transacted, how would they hinder adoption?
Issue #4: Why does Bitcoin need "adoption", if it damages it's qualities? If you want "adoption", you want to get rich quick. Greed is bad.
Issue #5: They say this since many months, hasn't happened.

12c3DnfNrfgnnJ3RovFpaCDGDeS6LMkfTN "who lives by QE dies by QE"
CIYAM
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1890
Merit: 1004


Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer


View Profile WWW
March 08, 2016, 04:49:09 PM
 #71

We need to increase the blocksize NOW or the fees rise dramatically and the transactions become unreliable, this will hinder adoption.

Issue #1: The transaction fees don't appear to be rising dramatically.

Let's just look at that and think about how much we should actually consider reading anything else that you might have to post.

Hmm... nope - not worth reading anything further IMO (unable to make any sense in only two lines of text as you contradicted yourself that quickly).

With CIYAM anyone can create 100% generated C++ web applications in literally minutes.

GPG Public Key | 1ciyam3htJit1feGa26p2wQ4aw6KFTejU
hv_
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1722
Merit: 657

Clean Code and Scale


View Profile WWW
March 08, 2016, 04:49:54 PM
 #72

We need to increase the blocksize NOW or the fees rise dramatically and the transactions become unreliable, this will hinder adoption.

Issue #1: The transaction fees don't appear to be rising dramatically.
Issue #2: The transactions that have a decent fee are reliable.
Issue #3: Fees are very small compared to the amounts transacted, how would they hinder adoption?
Issue #4: Why does Bitcoin need "adoption", if it damages it's qualities? If you want "adoption", you want to get rich quick. Greed is bad.
Issue #5: They say this since many months, hasn't happened.


Doing Not, would just be anti-agile and retarded....

Carpe diem  -  understand the White Paper and mine honest.
Memo: 1AHUYNJKPfY7PjVK1hNQFo5LrdGixuiybw  -  https://metanet.icu/
The simple way is the genius way - Satoshi's Rules: humana veris _
YarkoL
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 997
Merit: 1008



View Profile
March 08, 2016, 05:07:49 PM
 #73



If you want to use VISA - why not use VISA?
(it's already there and it works perfectly right now)


Quote
While the system works well enough for most transactions, it still suffers from the inherent
weaknesses of the trust based model.
Completely non-reversible transactions are not really possible, since financial institutions cannot
avoid mediating disputes. The cost of mediation increases transaction costs, limiting the
minimum practical transaction size and cutting off the possibility for small casual transactions,
and there is a broader cost in the loss of ability to make non-reversible payments for nonreversible
services....
What is needed is an electronic payment system based on cryptographic proof instead of trust,
allowing any two willing parties to transact directly with each other without the need for a trusted
third party...

I leave the source of the quote as an exercise.

“God does not play dice"
CIYAM
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1890
Merit: 1004


Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer


View Profile WWW
March 08, 2016, 05:09:47 PM
 #74

I leave the source of the quote as an exercise.

That wasn't my point (and you know it).

With CIYAM anyone can create 100% generated C++ web applications in literally minutes.

GPG Public Key | 1ciyam3htJit1feGa26p2wQ4aw6KFTejU
YarkoL
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 997
Merit: 1008



View Profile
March 08, 2016, 05:14:44 PM
 #75


You said Visa works perfectly, so let's use that.

“God does not play dice"
rienelber
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154
Merit: 100


View Profile
March 08, 2016, 05:20:01 PM
 #76

this is probably the most important discussion in the bitcoin world.


scalability is crucial if we want bitcoin to survive!
Cuidler
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 294
Merit: 250


View Profile
March 08, 2016, 05:36:11 PM
 #77

By the number of users who want scale Bitcoin to keep Bitcoin as pay2pay decentralized system with onchain transactions affordable versus Bitcoin as just settlement layer for more or less centralized offchain services, Im sure the dark side cannot win and original Satoshi Bitcoin vision will be followed with Bitcoin project.

If we scale onchain limit, people can still choose offchain centralized services if these are really better than onchain transactions, so why cap the blocksize limit to force people to these offchain centralized services  Huh Are you affraid Blockstream there is no real demand for such offchain centralized services among Bitcoin users  Wink

.Liqui Exchange.Trade and earn 24% / year on BTC, LTC, ETH
....Brand NEW..........................................Payouts every 24h. Learn more at official thread
Meuh6879
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1512
Merit: 1010



View Profile
March 08, 2016, 06:08:04 PM
 #78

Satoshi did plan for Bitcoin to compete with PayPal/Visa in traffic volumes.

With a initial block limit at 33,5Mb : Yes.
CIYAM
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1890
Merit: 1004


Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer


View Profile WWW
March 08, 2016, 06:09:20 PM
 #79

Satoshi did plan for Bitcoin to compete with PayPal/Visa in traffic volumes.

With a initial block limit at 33,5Mb : Yes.

And you do realise that if someone created such a block that no-one else could verify it in the 10 minutes required to create the next block right?

(or - you don't care about the fact that this just wouldn't work?)

With CIYAM anyone can create 100% generated C++ web applications in literally minutes.

GPG Public Key | 1ciyam3htJit1feGa26p2wQ4aw6KFTejU
Zarathustra
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1134
Merit: 1004



View Profile
March 08, 2016, 06:17:15 PM
 #80

Satoshi did plan for Bitcoin to compete with PayPal/Visa in traffic volumes.

With a initial block limit at 33,5Mb : Yes.

And you do realise that if someone created such a block that no-one else could verify it in the 10 minutes required to create the next block right?

(or - you don't care about the fact that this just wouldn't work?)

That's why nobody creates such blocks, you fool.
Lauda
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2674
Merit: 2746


Terminated.


View Profile WWW
March 08, 2016, 06:17:53 PM
 #81

With a initial block limit at 33,5Mb : Yes.
Wrong. Let's quickly analyze this:
Visa does 2000 TPS on average with a peak capacity of around 50 000 TPS (transactions-per-second). Bitcoin has a theoretical maximum TPS of 7 at 1 MB block size limit. However, realistically this the TPS is currently around 3. Now multiply this with ~33 and you end up with a TPS of 99. It might be able to compete with snails with a 33 MB block size limit, but certainly not Visa.

And you do realise that if someone created such a block that no-one else could verify it in the 10 minutes required to create the next block right?
This problem can happen at a 2 MB block size limit.

scalability is crucial if we want bitcoin to survive!
Increasing the block size limit does not improve scalability.

"The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks"
😼 Bitcoin Core (onion)
CIYAM
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1890
Merit: 1004


Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer


View Profile WWW
March 08, 2016, 06:18:51 PM
 #82

That's why nobody creates such blocks, you fool.

I'm sorry "you fool" but why on earth would you want such a high limit then?

Seemingly you are such a "fool" you don't even understand the implications of what that might mean do you?

Cheesy

With CIYAM anyone can create 100% generated C++ web applications in literally minutes.

GPG Public Key | 1ciyam3htJit1feGa26p2wQ4aw6KFTejU
Amph
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2450
Merit: 1010



View Profile
March 08, 2016, 06:21:42 PM
 #83

Satoshi did plan for Bitcoin to compete with PayPal/Visa in traffic volumes.

With a initial block limit at 33,5Mb : Yes.

And you do realise that if someone created such a block that no-one else could verify it in the 10 minutes required to create the next block right?

(or - you don't care about the fact that this just wouldn't work?)

then how it was possible at the beginning to verify it if it was there when bitcoin was born?
Zarathustra
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1134
Merit: 1004



View Profile
March 08, 2016, 06:22:09 PM
 #84


Increasing the block size limit does not improve scalability.

Segwit reduces scalability.
CIYAM
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1890
Merit: 1004


Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer


View Profile WWW
March 08, 2016, 06:23:35 PM
 #85

then how it was possible at the beginning to verify it if it was there when bitcoin was born?

A post from the "mega-retard" - how refreshing.

If you bother to look at the entire history of Bitcoin blocks just see how many were bigger than 1MB before 2010.

(come back to me after you've done that research although I'm guessing your lazy ad-sigging ass won't bother to do so)

With CIYAM anyone can create 100% generated C++ web applications in literally minutes.

GPG Public Key | 1ciyam3htJit1feGa26p2wQ4aw6KFTejU
Zarathustra
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1134
Merit: 1004



View Profile
March 08, 2016, 06:25:28 PM
 #86

That's why nobody creates such blocks, you fool.

I'm sorry "you fool" but why on earth would you want such a high limit then?

Seemingly you are such a "fool" you don't even understand the implications of what that might mean do you?

Cheesy


A limit is for you fools only, to calm you down. Otherwise you would shit in your pants.
Bitcoin Unlimited is for men.
Amph
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2450
Merit: 1010



View Profile
March 08, 2016, 06:26:09 PM
 #87

then how it was possible at the beginning to verify it if it was there when bitcoin was born?

A post from the "mega-retard" - how refreshing.

If you bother to look at the entire history of Bitcoin blocks just see how many were bigger than 1MB before 2010.

(come back to me after you've done that research although I'm guessing your lazy ad-sigging ass won't bother to do so)


well then your point is moot, since right now there are only few blocks that are bigger than 1 mega, so again why 32 will not work for the time being?
CIYAM
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1890
Merit: 1004


Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer


View Profile WWW
March 08, 2016, 06:26:22 PM
 #88

A limit is for you fools only, to calm you down. Otherwise you would shit in your pants.
Bitcoin Unlimited is for men.

I see - those with particularly big appendages I would assume then?

With CIYAM anyone can create 100% generated C++ web applications in literally minutes.

GPG Public Key | 1ciyam3htJit1feGa26p2wQ4aw6KFTejU
CIYAM
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1890
Merit: 1004


Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer


View Profile WWW
March 08, 2016, 06:27:31 PM
 #89

well then your point is moot, since right now there are only few blocks that are bigger than 1 mega, so again why 32 will not work for the time being?

Because *idiot* practically no nodes could verify all the sigs that would be in a 32MB block in 10 minutes.

Can you comprehend that?

(or do we need to translate it into "baby language" that you can understand?)

With CIYAM anyone can create 100% generated C++ web applications in literally minutes.

GPG Public Key | 1ciyam3htJit1feGa26p2wQ4aw6KFTejU
franky1
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2926
Merit: 1780



View Profile
March 08, 2016, 06:34:47 PM
Last edit: March 08, 2016, 07:03:24 PM by franky1
 #90

ciyams answer to everything. no real data, no real stats no real scenarios. just insulting anyone whos mindset is not in blockstreams corporate pockets.

guess what. ciyam actually debated 4mb before as a doomsdays scenario.. but as soon as it was realised that segwit(his gods plan) allowed for upto 4mb of data per block.. he changed his ways.

technology didnt change overnight. but the words of his gods bible did.

its funny, any idea that is not blockstreams must be insulted. not using real knowledge or data, but purely emotion.

i really wish he would take 5 minutes out to relax and have a coffee, cool down his emotion and reply using his knowledge. because until recently, he use to actually make logical sense.

for instance. in the last 20 minutes he has made a couple replies that are basically vapour arguments with alot of insults.

if he instead took a 5 minute break to gather his thoughts into an idea. and spent the remaining 15 minutes writing a proper reply that had context. then that reply would (maybe) have been a winning reply.
yet even after asking him many times on different topics to take a break and think up a genuine rebuttle. he does not.

now for my opinion.
bitcoin does not need to reach the scales of Visa by 2017.. bitcoin can achieve this over a 10-15 period. without issue.
and once you realise that a Xblocklimit growing over the years +segwit + sidechains can easily surpass visa worldwide in 15 years, where it took visa 60 years.

that said if we just concentrate on one ledger of visa and one ledger of bitcoin (not sidechain). then bitcoin with just 2mb+segwit
(to avoid manually repeating myself)
if we apply that average 40 transactions a year* to the 104million US visa card holders**, then that is an average of 4.160billion transactions a year

which if we take 2mb+segwit (8000tx per ten minutes) is 420million transactions a year.

so bitcoin with 2mb+segwit can handle 10% of visa americas ledger.




*http://www.statista.com/statistics/279275/average-credit-card-transaction-volume-per-card-worldwide/
**http://budgeting.thenest.com/percentage-americans-credit-cards-30856.html


so imagine in 15 years bitcoin was 20mb+segwit. that would be on par with visa USA
then imagine the sidechains had similar capacity each

sidechainA comparable to Visa Europe
sidechainB comparable to Visa Asia
sidechainC comparable to Visa australia

but sticking with 1mbsegwit, trying to push hard for sidechains is pushing people into a less secre network.
especially if blockstream only wants to double blocklimit every 8 years.
meaning 4mb+segwit+sidechains in 2026 and 8mb+segwit+sidechains in 2032.. meaning bitcoin wont be on par with visa america until
well into 2040 (24 years)

I DO NOT TRADE OR ACT AS ESCROW ON THIS FORUM EVER.
Please do your own research & respect what is written here as both opinion & information gleaned from experience. many people replying with insults but no on-topic content substance, automatically are 'facepalmed' and yawned at
sgbett
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2072
Merit: 1060



View Profile
March 08, 2016, 06:48:06 PM
 #91

SPV mining *is not proper mining*.

Is that not clear to you?

It is irrelevant whether or not they use the SPV protocol to do that so (and in fact they don't as they use the "relay network" which existed a long time before SPV support was added to Bitcoin) so your desperate attempts at trying to discredit me are failing and just making you look even more stupid.

If you mine that way then you end up on a fork (as has already happened) and as I have already tried to explain (but seemingly you are incapable of understanding) the larger you make the blocks then the easier it would be to trick other miners into mining on such forks.

And btw - the only *flawed understanding* here is your own.


You are way off topic. Lets zoom back out again.

At the start of this discussion, you made an assertion that a 64MB block takes a long time to validate, and that such a block could be crafted by a miner in order to "own" the bitcoin network. Specifically that this miner could "get all the fees and block rewards".

I asked three questions, the first was the most important. The answer you gave implied that you thought block validation time was the key to the malicious actor owning the network.

You had not stated this explicitly so to clarify, I asserted that the validation time of a block has no bearing on whether other miners can start mining the next block, as they can mine knowing just the block header.

I labelled this as being "SPV mining" (but as you rightly point out in your previous post could have been obtained through the Relay Network). The salient point was that any miner has the potential to mine the next block, because they have the block header and did not need to have (yet) validated the full block.

However you refuted this, stating that "everyone else" (other miners) would not know the header, because the header was only broadcast to "your miners (if you are a pool)":

You only broadcast that to your miners (if you are a pool) not to everyone else (you do know how this stuff works or don't you?).

Your original premise that the block chain can be owned by crafting a expensive to validate block, relies upon miners having to validate the block before they can start mining relies on your refutation.

There is circumstantial evidence that your statement is incorrect, in the blockchain (401302/401303) which you have not offered any explanation for.

You have not provided any factual evidence of you claim above, and so I have to assume that it is wrong.

If the statement is wrong then you demonstrably have a flawed understanding.

If your original assertion relies on a flawed understanding then the original assertion cannot be held true.

"A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution" - Satoshi Nakamoto
*my posts are not investment advice*
Amph
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2450
Merit: 1010



View Profile
March 08, 2016, 06:48:57 PM
 #92

well then your point is moot, since right now there are only few blocks that are bigger than 1 mega, so again why 32 will not work for the time being?

Because *idiot* practically no nodes could verify all the sigs that would be in a 32MB block in 10 minutes.

Can you comprehend that?

(or do we need to translate it into "baby language" that you can understand?)

lol are you following me or what, then again how it was possible to verify it back then?

you're not understanding apparently, having 32 mb right now will not change anything because we are almost in the same condition as before, we need only to verify less than 1mb, because the block is not even full for 1 mb let alone for 32

also about your signature concern https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Scalability
CIYAM
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1890
Merit: 1004


Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer


View Profile WWW
March 08, 2016, 06:50:55 PM
 #93

You are way off topic. Lets zoom back out again.

You are an idiot (and most likely @franky1 who I've already put on ignore).

I am putting you on ignore as well so feel free to post your rubbish (I don't think that anyone is actually taking you seriously anyway but I don't actually care).

With CIYAM anyone can create 100% generated C++ web applications in literally minutes.

GPG Public Key | 1ciyam3htJit1feGa26p2wQ4aw6KFTejU
CIYAM
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1890
Merit: 1004


Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer


View Profile WWW
March 08, 2016, 06:53:43 PM
 #94

you're not understanding apparently, having 32 mb right now will not change anything because we are almost in the same condition as before, we need only to verify less than 1mb, because the block is not even full for 1 mb let alone for 32

Amph - you obviously are unable to reason (I think that is why you are known as the "useless poster" is it not?) - if we made the block size so big you don't think that some group could decide to create huge blocks (with their own txs even) to fuck up everyone else (that would be struggling even to verify such blocks in 10 minutes)?

Don't compare what we have seen up until now when the limit of 1MB has been in place since before any 1MB block was ever created (of course this probably all is too hard for you to understand so perhaps just post somewhere else to keep up your ad sig posting count).

With CIYAM anyone can create 100% generated C++ web applications in literally minutes.

GPG Public Key | 1ciyam3htJit1feGa26p2wQ4aw6KFTejU
Amph
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2450
Merit: 1010



View Profile
March 08, 2016, 06:57:34 PM
 #95

the signature concern is not even a concern, in the link wiki that i've posted it explain how with some optimization it is possible to increment the number of signature per second

but well i don't like to argue with someone that only know how to insult people
CIYAM
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1890
Merit: 1004


Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer


View Profile WWW
March 08, 2016, 06:58:40 PM
 #96

the signature concern is not even a concern, in the link wiki that i've posted it explain how with some optimization it is possible to increment the number of signature per second

Aha - and that optimisation can do that 10x or 100x can it?

(I am only rude to people who are rude to me btw and if you want to be taken seriously then please dump your ad sig for a start)

With CIYAM anyone can create 100% generated C++ web applications in literally minutes.

GPG Public Key | 1ciyam3htJit1feGa26p2wQ4aw6KFTejU
Lauda
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2674
Merit: 2746


Terminated.


View Profile WWW
March 08, 2016, 06:59:31 PM
 #97

Amph - you obviously are unable to reason (I think that is why you are known as the "useless poster" is it not?) - if we made the block size so big you don't think that some group could decide to create huge blocks (with their own txs even) to fuck up everyone else (that would be struggling even to verify such blocks in 10 minutes)?
You're wasting your time with him. Obviously there is a good reason for which a 2 MB block size limit is dangerous (validation time); proposing 32 MB right now would be a bad joke at best (now).

Aha - and that optimisation can do that 10x or 100x can it?
No. He read something on the Wiki that he doesn't even understand.

"The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks"
😼 Bitcoin Core (onion)
Zarathustra
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1134
Merit: 1004



View Profile
March 08, 2016, 07:02:01 PM
 #98

ciyams answer to everything. no real data, no real stats no real scenarios. just insulting anyone whos mindset is not in blockstreams corporate pockets.

guess what. ciyam actually debated 4mb before as a doomsdays scenario.. but as soon as it was realised that segwit(his gods plan) allowed for upto 4mb of data per block.. he changed his ways.

technology didnt change overnight. but the words of his gods bible did.

its funny, any idea that is not blockstreams must be insulted. not using real knowledge or data, but purely emotion.

i really wish he would take 5 minutes out to relax and have a coffee, cool down his emotion and reply using his knowledge. because until recently, he use to actually make logical sense.

for instance. in the last 20 minutes he has made a couple replies that are basically vapour arguments with alot of insults.

if he instead took a 5 minute break to gather his thoughts into an idea. and spent the remaining 15 minutes writing a proper reply that had context. then that reply would (maybe) have been a winning reply.
yet even after asking him many times on different topics to take a break and think up a genuine rebuttle. he does not.

now for my opinion.
bitcoin does not need to reach the scales of Visa by 2017.. bitcoin can achieve this over a 10-15 period. without issue.
and once you realise that a Xblocklimit growing over the years +segwit + sidechains can easily surpass visa worldwide in 15 years, where it took visa 60 years.

that said if we just concentrate on one ledger of visa and one ledger of bitcoin (not sidechain). then bitcoin with just 2mb+segwit
(to avoid manually repeating myself)
if we apply that average 40 transactions a year* to the 104million US visa card holders**, then that is an average of 4.160billion transactions a year

which if we take 2mb+segwit (8000tx per ten minutes) is 420million transactions a year.

so bitcoin with 2mb+segwit can handle 10% of visa americas ledger.




*http://www.statista.com/statistics/279275/average-credit-card-transaction-volume-per-card-worldwide/
**http://budgeting.thenest.com/percentage-americans-credit-cards-30856.html

Zarathustra
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1134
Merit: 1004



View Profile
March 08, 2016, 07:03:56 PM
 #99

Amph - you obviously are unable to reason (I think that is why you are known as the "useless poster" is it not?) - if we made the block size so big you don't think that some group could decide to create huge blocks (with their own txs even) to fuck up everyone else (that would be struggling even to verify such blocks in 10 minutes)?
You're wasting your time with him. Obviously there is a good reason for which a 2 MB block size limit is dangerous; proposing 32 MB right now would be a bad joke at best (now).


LOL, 2MB dangerous but the 4MB of your idols not.
Dumb - dumber - small blockers.
franky1
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2926
Merit: 1780



View Profile
March 08, 2016, 07:04:54 PM
 #100

You're wasting your time with him. Obviously there is a good reason for which a 2 MB block size limit is dangerous;

and there is the hat trick
2mb dangerous?? ?? ?

yet strangely segwits 4mb not dangerous??

you cant have it both ways

I DO NOT TRADE OR ACT AS ESCROW ON THIS FORUM EVER.
Please do your own research & respect what is written here as both opinion & information gleaned from experience. many people replying with insults but no on-topic content substance, automatically are 'facepalmed' and yawned at
David Rabahy
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 709
Merit: 500



View Profile
March 08, 2016, 07:28:11 PM
 #101

I would be willing to run a full node on a testnet to see if my system could handle larger blocks, i.e. verify a large block in less than the average time between blocks.

I have a question:  The total amount work to verify N 1MB blocks is about the same as single N-MB block, right?  For example, 32 1MB blocks take about the same amount of work to verify as a single 32MB block, right?  Just please ignore the live delivery of blocks for the moment.  Or is there some advantage to large blocks where less headers have to be processed.  Imagine a full node was off the air for a day or two and is just trying to catch up as fast as possible.  What block size facilitates that best?

To me it seems fees tend to be inversely proportional to block size, i.e. with smaller blocks fees rise as folks compete to get into blocks, with larger blocks fees get smaller with less competition to get into blocks.  What does it cost a bad actor (if there is truly such a thing in this realm) to clog up the works?  I suppose we are looking for the right size of block to cause them to expend their resources most quickly.  Make the block size very small and the fee competition would rise high enough to deplete the bad actor very fast; everyone suffers higher fees until they are run out of town (so to speak).  Hmm, but if the block size is very small then even when there aren't any bad actors on the scene, regular legit users would be forced to compete.  At the other end of the spectrum; make the block size very large and with such low competition fees would diminish.  The real question here is what happens to the fees/MB across the spectrum of block sizes.

Is there *anyone* preferring a smaller than 1MB block size right now?  I haven't heard of any but you never know.  I do think some miners do artificially constrain the block size they produce to like 900KB or so (I'm not sure of their motivation).  Even if the block size were increased then such miners could still constrain the ones they produce, right?

A transaction cannot span multiple blocks, right?  I suppose the block size creates a functional limit on transaction sizes.  Or is the size of a transaction constrained some other way?
Amph
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2450
Merit: 1010



View Profile
March 08, 2016, 07:31:27 PM
 #102

the signature concern is not even a concern, in the link wiki that i've posted it explain how with some optimization it is possible to increment the number of signature per second

Aha - and that optimisation can do that 10x or 100x can it?

(I am only rude to people who are rude to me btw and if you want to be taken seriously then please dump your ad sig for a start)


what sig have to do with our discussion, there are many troll even worse among those without sign...and anyway i'm not payd for monere than 100 post per week, and guess what this is the 200°+ post....

and anyway yes those optimization can reach 10x increasing and even higher



obviously lauda is joking because in 2017 they are going to implement 2mega hard fork anyway

there is no real valid concern against 2mega all i see is a non-sense fud
David Rabahy
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 709
Merit: 500



View Profile
March 08, 2016, 07:34:00 PM
 #103

One thing that seems apparent to me is the lack of willingness to compromise.  Appeasement is a powerful marketing tool.  Could we reasonably raise the block size limit to 1.1MB without wrecking Bitcoin?  Wouldn't the good will generated be worth it?  Along the way we might learn something important.  I fully realize the 2MB being bandied about is already a giant compromise down from the 32MB or 8MB sizes being proposed before.  Is there something special about doubling?  It can be set to 1.1MB easily, right?
Lauda
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2674
Merit: 2746


Terminated.


View Profile WWW
March 08, 2016, 07:39:40 PM
 #104

I have a question:  The total amount work to verify N 1MB blocks is about the same as single N-MB block, right?  For example, 32 1MB blocks take about the same amount of work to verify as a single 32MB block, right?  
No. The scaling of validation time is quadratic (look up quadratic growth if unsure what this means). In other words, 32 1 MB blocks != a single 32 MB block. Segwit aims to scale down the validation time and make it linear. Classic (BIP109) adds a sigops limitation to prevent this from happening (so not a solution, but limitation to size of TX IIRC). If anyone claims that this is false or whatever, that means they are saying that all the people who signed the Core roadmap are wrong/lying (2 MB block size limit is mentioned there IIRC).

It can be set to 1.1MB easily, right?
That would work.

"The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks"
😼 Bitcoin Core (onion)
franky1
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2926
Merit: 1780



View Profile
March 08, 2016, 07:44:10 PM
 #105

I have a question:  The total amount work to verify N 1MB blocks is about the same as single N-MB block, right?  For example, 32 1MB blocks take about the same amount of work to verify as a single 32MB block, right?  Just please ignore the live delivery of blocks for the moment.  Or is there some advantage to large blocks where less headers have to be processed.  Imagine a full node was off the air for a day or two and is just trying to catch up as fast as possible.  What block size facilitates that best?

a much easier way. to get an initial bases number to then compare is to start from scratch. and time how long it takes to resync from 0 to the latest block
..then do the maths

EG
someone pointed out to lauda that at a 1mb internet connection http://bitcoinstats.com/irc/bitcoin-dev/logs/2016/01/17#l1453064029.0
it would take 12 days to resync and validate 400,000 blocks

so basing it on a very slow connection is a good bases of capability
which is basically 400,000 /12 /24/ 60 = 0.39 blocks a minute. so lets call that 1 block in under 3 minutes.

that is the basic total propogation time including download time using a 1mb connection speed.

though it would be useful to work out how long it takes to validate the data without the connection speed hindering it.
and also know the total propogation time at a varying amount of internet speeds too

so i wish you luck with your investigations and i hope your results give some conclusive results

I DO NOT TRADE OR ACT AS ESCROW ON THIS FORUM EVER.
Please do your own research & respect what is written here as both opinion & information gleaned from experience. many people replying with insults but no on-topic content substance, automatically are 'facepalmed' and yawned at
franky1
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2926
Merit: 1780



View Profile
March 08, 2016, 07:49:22 PM
 #106

One thing that seems apparent to me is the lack of willingness to compromise.  Appeasement is a powerful marketing tool.  Could we reasonably raise the block size limit to 1.1MB without wrecking Bitcoin?  Wouldn't the good will generated be worth it?  Along the way we might learn something important.  I fully realize the 2MB being bandied about is already a giant compromise down from the 32MB or 8MB sizes being proposed before.  Is there something special about doubling?  It can be set to 1.1MB easily, right?

1.1mb is an empty gesture. and solves nothing long term. meaning its just a poke in the gut knowing that more growth would be needed soon.

the 2mb is not forcing miners to make 2mb blocks. its a BUFFER to allow for growth without having to demand that core keep chaing the rules every month.

just like in 2013 when miners were fully able to use the 1mb buffer the miners did not jump to 0.95mb, they grew slowly over months and months. without having to ask core to change it endlessly from 0.5 to 0.55 to 0.6 to 0.65

meaning even with 2mb buffer. miners can set a preferential limit of 1.1mb and still have 45% of growth potential(the 2mb hard limit) not even tapped into and not needing to beg core to alter anything for months-years, instead of 1.1mb hard limit which requires endless debates

imagine it. 2mb buffer and miners grow slowly month after month growing by 0.1mb when they are happy to. without hindrance or demands

and while you are investigating validation times.. please validate a 450kb block vs a 900kb block and see if the whole quadratic buzzword holds wait.
as it would be an interesting answer (as a comparison between 900kb vs 1800kb which is not measurable on the bitcoin network yet)


I DO NOT TRADE OR ACT AS ESCROW ON THIS FORUM EVER.
Please do your own research & respect what is written here as both opinion & information gleaned from experience. many people replying with insults but no on-topic content substance, automatically are 'facepalmed' and yawned at
David Rabahy
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 709
Merit: 500



View Profile
March 08, 2016, 07:49:29 PM
 #107

I have a question:  The total amount work to verify N 1MB blocks is about the same as single N-MB block, right?  For example, 32 1MB blocks take about the same amount of work to verify as a single 32MB block, right?  
No. The scaling of validation time is quadratic (look up quadratic growth if unsure what this means). In other words, 32 1 MB blocks != a single 32 MB block. Segwit aims to scale down the validation time and make it linear. Classic (BIP109) adds a sigops limitation to prevent this from happening (so not a solution, but limitation to size of TX IIRC). If anyone claims that this is false or whatever, that means they are saying that all the people who signed the Core roadmap are wrong/lying (2 MB block size limit is mentioned there IIRC).

It can be set to 1.1MB easily, right?
That would work.
Thank you Lauda:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadratic_growth ... ouchie; so if a 1MB block with y transactions in it takes x seconds to validate then 32 similar 1MB blocks will take about 32x seconds but a 32MB block can be expected to take about (32y)²x seconds.  Or is the quadratic growth on something other than transaction count?
sgbett
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2072
Merit: 1060



View Profile
March 08, 2016, 07:52:21 PM
 #108

You are way off topic. Lets zoom back out again.

You are an idiot (and most likely @franky1 who I've already put on ignore).

I am putting you on ignore as well so feel free to post your rubbish (I don't think that anyone is actually taking you seriously anyway but I don't actually care).


As you are not refuting anything I have said then I will assume it is because you cannot.

The only logical conclusion is that is because you were in fact wrong, and so your comments about my lack of understanding are demonstrably false.

As I have now cleared up any misconceptions about what I do or do not know. I don't think there is anything left to discuss

If you do come up with any factual evidence I'll be happy to reopen a dialogue.

"A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution" - Satoshi Nakamoto
*my posts are not investment advice*
David Rabahy
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 709
Merit: 500



View Profile
March 08, 2016, 07:54:30 PM
 #109

One thing that seems apparent to me is the lack of willingness to compromise.  Appeasement is a powerful marketing tool.  Could we reasonably raise the block size limit to 1.1MB without wrecking Bitcoin?  Wouldn't the good will generated be worth it?  Along the way we might learn something important.  I fully realize the 2MB being bandied about is already a giant compromise down from the 32MB or 8MB sizes being proposed before.  Is there something special about doubling?  It can be set to 1.1MB easily, right?
1.1mb is an empty gesture. and solves nothing long term. meaning its just a poke in the gut knowing that more growth would be needed soon.

the 2mb is not forcing miners to make 2mb blocks. its a BUFFER to allow for growth without having to demand that core keep chaing the rules every month.

meaning even with 2mb buffer. miners can set a preferential limit of 1.1mb and still have 45% of growth potential(the 2mb hard limit) not even tapped into and not needing to beg core to alter for months-years

imagine it. 2mb buffer and miners grow slowly month after month growing by 0.1mb when they are happy to. without hindrance or demands

just like in 2013 when miners were fully able to use the 1mb buffer the miners did not jump to 0.95mb, they grew slowly over months and months. without having to ask core to change..
Thank you franky1:  I understand but a 10% jump is at least something and then if all goes well the stage would be set to jump to something more, e.g. 1.2MB.  Breaking the standoff seems more important to me at this time; the world is watching us.
Lauda
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2674
Merit: 2746


Terminated.


View Profile WWW
March 08, 2016, 07:57:21 PM
 #110

Thank you Lauda:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadratic_growth ... ouchie; so if a 1MB block with y transactions in it takes x seconds to validate then 32 similar 1MB blocks will take about 32x seconds but a 32MB block can be expected to take about (32y)²x seconds.  Or is the quadratic growth on something other than transaction count?
It can be a bit tough to understand (I feel you). The number of transactions is irrelevant from what I understand. it is possible to construct a single transaction that would fill up a block. From the Core roadmap:
Quote
In 2MB blocks, a 2MB transaction can be constructed that may take over 10 minutes to validate which opens up dangerous denial-of-service attack vectors.
The validation time of the block itself is what has quadratic scaling. From one of the workshops last year (might help understand the problem):
Quote
So how bad is it? There was a block consisting of one transaction in the coinbase, it was broadcasted about one month ago. It was f2pool that was clearing up a bunch of spam on the blockchain. The problem is that this block takes 30 seconds to validate. It's a 990 kilobyte transaction. It contains about 500,000 signature operations, which each time serializes the entire 1 MB transaction out, moves buffers around, then serializes it, then hashes it, it creates 1.25 GB. The bitcoin serializer is not fast, it's about where 60% of the validation time was. So 30 seconds to validate and that's on a beefy computer, I don't know what that is on a raspberrypi, it's not linear it's quadratic scaling... If you are doing 8 MB, then it's 2 hours and 8 minutes. There are some ways that gavinandresen has proposed that this can be fixed. This transaction would be considered non-standard on the network now, but miners can still generate these transactions.

"The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks"
😼 Bitcoin Core (onion)
hv_
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1722
Merit: 657

Clean Code and Scale


View Profile WWW
March 08, 2016, 07:59:18 PM
 #111

One thing that seems apparent to me is the lack of willingness to compromise.  Appeasement is a powerful marketing tool.  Could we reasonably raise the block size limit to 1.1MB without wrecking Bitcoin?  Wouldn't the good will generated be worth it?  Along the way we might learn something important.  I fully realize the 2MB being bandied about is already a giant compromise down from the 32MB or 8MB sizes being proposed before.  Is there something special about doubling?  It can be set to 1.1MB easily, right?
1.1mb is an empty gesture. and solves nothing long term. meaning its just a poke in the gut knowing that more growth would be needed soon.

the 2mb is not forcing miners to make 2mb blocks. its a BUFFER to allow for growth without having to demand that core keep chaing the rules every month.

meaning even with 2mb buffer. miners can set a preferential limit of 1.1mb and still have 45% of growth potential(the 2mb hard limit) not even tapped into and not needing to beg core to alter for months-years

imagine it. 2mb buffer and miners grow slowly month after month growing by 0.1mb when they are happy to. without hindrance or demands

just like in 2013 when miners were fully able to use the 1mb buffer the miners did not jump to 0.95mb, they grew slowly over months and months. without having to ask core to change..
Thank you franky1:  I understand but a 10% jump is at least something and then if all goes well the stage would be set to jump to something more, e.g. 1.2MB.  Breaking the standoff seems more important to me at this time; the world is watching us.

Great, watching...

Carpe diem  -  understand the White Paper and mine honest.
Memo: 1AHUYNJKPfY7PjVK1hNQFo5LrdGixuiybw  -  https://metanet.icu/
The simple way is the genius way - Satoshi's Rules: humana veris _
David Rabahy
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 709
Merit: 500



View Profile
March 08, 2016, 07:59:27 PM
 #112

As hard as it might be to see, I really believe the crisis in front of us is one of perception as opposed to anything technical.  Perceptions are manageable while the real work of sorting through the technical issues is taken out of the limelight.
franky1
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2926
Merit: 1780



View Profile
March 08, 2016, 08:01:02 PM
 #113

Thank you franky1:  I understand but a 10% jump is at least something and then if all goes well the stage would be set to jump to something more, e.g. 1.2MB.  Breaking the standoff seems more important to me at this time; the world is watching us.

since summer 2015 people have been asking for a buffer increase. the roadmap plans one for 2 years (summer 2017) after a year of grace(starting summer 2016, we hope).
that means when miners get to 1.1 they then have to beg for a year and then wait a grace period of a year before getting to 1.2.

its much easier to have 2mb buffer and let the miners themselves slowly increase 1.1 then 1.2 when they are ready. as a soft rule within their own code below the hard rule of consensus
after all they are not going to risk pushing too fast as their rewards would be at risk due to not only competition but also orphans, so even with a 2mb buffer we wont see miners pushing to 1.950 anytime soon, just like in 2013.. when they realised they had 50% of growth potential they could fill.. they didnt straight away

I DO NOT TRADE OR ACT AS ESCROW ON THIS FORUM EVER.
Please do your own research & respect what is written here as both opinion & information gleaned from experience. many people replying with insults but no on-topic content substance, automatically are 'facepalmed' and yawned at
David Rabahy
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 709
Merit: 500



View Profile
March 08, 2016, 08:07:05 PM
 #114

Thank you Lauda:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadratic_growth ... ouchie; so if a 1MB block with y transactions in it takes x seconds to validate then 32 similar 1MB blocks will take about 32x seconds but a 32MB block can be expected to take about (32y)²x seconds.  Or is the quadratic growth on something other than transaction count?
It can be a bit tough to understand (I feel you). The number of transactions is irrelevant from what I understand. it is possible to construct a single transaction that would fill up a block. From the Core roadmap:
Quote
In 2MB blocks, a 2MB transaction can be constructed that may take over 10 minutes to validate which opens up dangerous denial-of-service attack vectors.
The validation time of the block itself is what has quadratic scaling. From one of the workshops last year (might help understand the problem):
Quote
So how bad is it? There was a block consisting of one transaction in the coinbase, it was broadcasted about one month ago. It was f2pool that was clearing up a bunch of spam on the blockchain. The problem is that this block takes 30 seconds to validate. It's a 990 kilobyte transaction. It contains about 500,000 signature operations, which each time serializes the entire 1 MB transaction out, moves buffers around, then serializes it, then hashes it, it creates 1.25 GB. The bitcoin serializer is not fast, it's about where 60% of the validation time was. So 30 seconds to validate and that's on a beefy computer, I don't know what that is on a raspberrypi, it's not linear it's quadratic scaling... If you are doing 8 MB, then it's 2 hours and 8 minutes. There are some ways that gavinandresen has proposed that this can be fixed. This transaction would be considered non-standard on the network now, but miners can still generate these transactions.
Sincerely, thank you Lauda:  I really do try hard to understand and your patience is much appreciated.  It did seem unreasonable for the scaling to hinge on transaction count.  Serialization is a classic scaling killer.  So, one very large transaction with numerous sigops leads to the quadratic growth.  Hmm, so blindly increasing the block size is asking for trouble.  How many of these troublesome transactions are launched against us recently?  Or is it an unexploited vulnerability?

Perhaps we could increase the block size *and* constrain sigops/transaction until we get SegWit out the door?
adamstgBit
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1904
Merit: 1019


Trusted Bitcoiner


View Profile WWW
March 08, 2016, 08:13:44 PM
 #115

but miners can still generate these transactions.
but the block would get orphaned?

Cuidler
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 294
Merit: 250


View Profile
March 08, 2016, 08:30:40 PM
 #116

Satoshi did plan for Bitcoin to compete with PayPal/Visa in traffic volumes.

With a initial block limit at 33,5Mb : Yes.

And you do realise that if someone created such a block that no-one else could verify it in the 10 minutes required to create the next block right?

(or - you don't care about the fact that this just wouldn't work?)


Not true, with BIP 109 activated, there cannot be transactions with extremly long validation times. Actually this reducting SigOp to 1.3 GB operations is reccomended ever for 1 MB limit. Dont worry, keep solving problems to experts, not to those saying its impossible to scale onchain, because all the evidence points onchain scalling is possible for many years to keep the demand and necessary decentralization with full nodes running at home computers (not necessary every obsolute low spec home computer though!)

.Liqui Exchange.Trade and earn 24% / year on BTC, LTC, ETH
....Brand NEW..........................................Payouts every 24h. Learn more at official thread
adamstgBit
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1904
Merit: 1019


Trusted Bitcoiner


View Profile WWW
March 08, 2016, 08:31:33 PM
Last edit: March 08, 2016, 08:42:36 PM by adamstgBit
 #117

As hard as it might be to see, I really believe the crisis in front of us is one of perception as opposed to anything technical.  Perceptions are manageable while the real work of sorting through the technical issues is taken out of the limelight.

The network is working and it's still relatively cheap (5cents pre TX)
But we have threads that are titled " why is my TX not confirming ?? " or somthing to that effect
Newbies are using bitcoin for the first time and are having a hard time, with their BTC tie up seemly never to confrim, and they conclude that bitcoin is not all that it's cracked up to be....
is this a problem?

I remember when i was a newbie, i would check over and over waiting for the first 6 confirmations, everything went smoothly, but I didnt fully trust that it would go smoothly, i was afraid my money would get lost or somthing. slowly my confidence in the system grew as i used it more and understood it more.

not sure i would have be able to build any confidence had i started using bitcoin today....

SpiryGolden
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812
Merit: 500



View Profile
March 08, 2016, 08:40:50 PM
 #118

He thought Moore's law would keep up with the scalability demands...

Moore's law has never applied to bandwidth (so if Satoshi really thought that then clearly he wasn't a genius was he).

Or perhaps you think that because Satoshi could never be wrong then if he said that "Moore's Law" applies to bandwidth it actually does?


Bandwidth is not a technological issues is a centralized market control by big players on Internet market. I pay 10$ per month on a fiber optic in-house connection 1gbit without any issue. Except that the fiber optic is kinda sensitive I got it broken a few times *lol*. No bandwidth issue. The same computer that is also running a Bitcoin Node I play via Steam Stream full HD games. So again what did you said about bandwidth? I downloaded the blockchain with 25mbit/sec. It was finished in exactly 3 and half hours.

My phone will be able to keep the Bitcoin blockchain right now without any issues my internet connection can do that. If miners bandwidth is an issue they they should be out of business. As they don't want power outages , they don't want bad internet connection. That's their business.
hv_
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1722
Merit: 657

Clean Code and Scale


View Profile WWW
March 08, 2016, 08:47:44 PM
 #119

As hard as it might be to see, I really believe the crisis in front of us is one of perception as opposed to anything technical.  Perceptions are manageable while the real work of sorting through the technical issues is taken out of the limelight.

The network is working and it's still relatively cheap (5cents pre TX)
But we have threads that are titled " why is my TX not confirming ?? " or somthing to that effect
Newbies are using bitcoin for the first time and are having a hard time, with their BTC tie up seemly never to confrim, and they conclude that bitcoin is not all that it's cracked up to be....
is this a problem?

I remember when i was a newbie, i would check over and over waiting for the first 6 confirmations, everything went smoothly, but I didnt fully trust that it would go smoothly, i was afraid my money would get lost or somthing. slowly my confidence in the system grew as i used it more and understood it more.

not sure i would have be able to build any confidence had i started using bitcoin today....

Good spoken! The newbies are the masses.

Carpe diem  -  understand the White Paper and mine honest.
Memo: 1AHUYNJKPfY7PjVK1hNQFo5LrdGixuiybw  -  https://metanet.icu/
The simple way is the genius way - Satoshi's Rules: humana veris _
Lauda
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2674
Merit: 2746


Terminated.


View Profile WWW
March 08, 2016, 08:56:39 PM
 #120

So, one very large transaction with numerous sigops leads to the quadratic growth.  Hmm, so blindly increasing the block size is asking for trouble.  How many of these troublesome transactions are launched against us recently?  Or is it an unexploited vulnerability?
Perhaps we could increase the block size *and* constrain sigops/transaction until we get SegWit out the door?
Well the problem is only minor at a 1 MB block size limit. Segwit should scale it down and make it linear. It should be released in April (from the initial estimates), so I don't see how you plan to deploy the block size limit and a sigops limitation in <2 months.

but the block would get orphaned?
No, why would they?

"The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks"
😼 Bitcoin Core (onion)
adamstgBit
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1904
Merit: 1019


Trusted Bitcoiner


View Profile WWW
March 08, 2016, 08:59:33 PM
 #121

but the block would get orphaned?
No, why would they?
because the 1 TX the miner included, is obviously an attack to try and get the other miners to run in circles validating for minutes while he starts on the new block?

let's ignore the fact that miners have a strong incentive to keep the network running smoothly... and think about this WILD speculation that with 2MB blocks a miners can block all mining on the network by creating extremely complex transaction that take a long time to validate.

why can't the other miners simply orphen these blocks?

franky1
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2926
Merit: 1780



View Profile
March 08, 2016, 09:09:07 PM
 #122

So, one very large transaction with numerous sigops leads to the quadratic growth.  Hmm, so blindly increasing the block size is asking for trouble.  How many of these troublesome transactions are launched against us recently?  Or is it an unexploited vulnerability?
Perhaps we could increase the block size *and* constrain sigops/transaction until we get SegWit out the door?
Well the problem is only minor at a 1 MB block size limit. Segwit should scale it down and make it linear. It should be released in April (from the initial estimates), so I don't see how you plan to deploy the block size limit and a sigops limitation in <2 months.

and now you see why a 2mb+segwit released in april with 6month grace is not a problem

i love it when lauda debunks his own doomsday scenario

having the 2mb block limit included in aprils release is easy. plus it incentivises more people to download the april version ensuring a real chance of no contention, instead of having upgrades every couple months EG march april july. which just mess with the community too much

I DO NOT TRADE OR ACT AS ESCROW ON THIS FORUM EVER.
Please do your own research & respect what is written here as both opinion & information gleaned from experience. many people replying with insults but no on-topic content substance, automatically are 'facepalmed' and yawned at
David Rabahy
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 709
Merit: 500



View Profile
March 08, 2016, 09:14:26 PM
 #123

So, one very large transaction with numerous sigops leads to the quadratic growth.  Hmm, so blindly increasing the block size is asking for trouble.  How many of these troublesome transactions are launched against us recently?  Or is it an unexploited vulnerability?
Perhaps we could increase the block size *and* constrain sigops/transaction until we get SegWit out the door?
Well the problem is only minor at a 1 MB block size limit. Segwit should scale it down and make it linear. It should be released in April (from the initial estimates), so I don't see how you plan to deploy the block size limit and a sigops limitation in <2 months.
Another thank you Lauda:  If only more people took the time to make clear their positions like you do.  Yep, I see it; with SegWit so close it would be disruptive to overlap it with a block size limit increase combined with a sigops limitation.  I do feel it was a missed opportunity not to provide a modest block increase (even without a sigops limitation) many months ago but there's no going back now.  *Hopefully* SegWit will come out on time, functioning well, and be embraced quickly without a lot of angst.
Lauda
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2674
Merit: 2746


Terminated.


View Profile WWW
March 08, 2016, 09:23:45 PM
 #124

Another thank you Lauda:  If only more people took the time to make clear their positions like you do.  Yep, I see it; with SegWit so close it would be disruptive to overlap it with a block size limit increase combined with a sigops limitation.  I do feel it was a missed opportunity not to provide a modest block increase (even without a sigops limitation) many months ago but there's no going back now.  *Hopefully* SegWit will come out on time, functioning well, and be embraced quickly without a lot of angst.
You're very welcome. I do hope that there will be a hard fork proposal after Segwit which will gain consensus. However, if Segwit is adopted quickly by both the miners and users we should see a good increase in transaction capacity that should hopefully get us through 2016. The problem caused in this conflict is that there are a lot of people who aren't willing to listen to reason and facts. Time should not be wasted on them.

why can't the other miners simply orphen these blocks?
Exactly how do you plan on "simply" detecting these blocks and why would somebody orphan them? How do you classify this as an attack; was the TX that F2Pool did to clear the spam also an attack?

"The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks"
😼 Bitcoin Core (onion)
David Rabahy
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 709
Merit: 500



View Profile
March 08, 2016, 09:23:49 PM
 #125

So, one very large transaction with numerous sigops leads to the quadratic growth.  Hmm, so blindly increasing the block size is asking for trouble.  How many of these troublesome transactions are launched against us recently?  Or is it an unexploited vulnerability?
Perhaps we could increase the block size *and* constrain sigops/transaction until we get SegWit out the door?
Well the problem is only minor at a 1 MB block size limit. Segwit should scale it down and make it linear. It should be released in April (from the initial estimates), so I don't see how you plan to deploy the block size limit and a sigops limitation in <2 months.
and now you see why a 2mb+segwit released in april with 6month grace is not a problem

i love it when lauda debunks his own doomsday scenario

having the 2mb block limit included in aprils release is easy. plus it incentivises more people to download the april version ensuring a real chance of no contention, instead of having upgrades every couple months EG march april july. which just mess with the community too much
Well, franky1, that's really interesting (although it could have been said just as well without the provocative words); 2MB + SegWit.  We do want to be careful -- releasing multiple things at the same time can lead to confusion if things don't go perfectly well.  I'd hate to see something going wrong and each side blaming the other.  Also, if there would be a need to retract a feature/function then that would likely cause a media stir; something Bitcoin doesn't need anymore of at this time.
adamstgBit
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1904
Merit: 1019


Trusted Bitcoiner


View Profile WWW
March 08, 2016, 09:30:38 PM
Last edit: March 08, 2016, 09:45:44 PM by adamstgBit
 #126

why can't the other miners simply orphen these blocks?
Exactly how do you plan on "simply" detecting these blocks and why would somebody orphan them? How do you classify this as an attack; was the TX that F2Pool did to clear the spam also an attack?

somthing like  if TX has >10,000 inputs it's no good?

why not!? I wouldn't mind if F2Pool's tiny blocks were orphaned by other miners. maybe he'll stop making these tiny blocks if they do punish him for it?

oh wait i read that wrong....

again, WHY NOT!? the TX in question WAS an attack, why include in the blockchain?

if you can't be sure if its spam or not ( <1$ TX with 1cent fee ) fine included in the block, but if you are sure it is spam ( >10K inputs ) why include it?

David Rabahy
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 709
Merit: 500



View Profile
March 08, 2016, 09:50:18 PM
 #127

As hard as it might be to see, I really believe the crisis in front of us is one of perception as opposed to anything technical.  Perceptions are manageable while the real work of sorting through the technical issues is taken out of the limelight.

The network is working and it's still relatively cheap (5cents pre TX)
But we have threads that are titled " why is my TX not confirming ?? " or somthing to that effect
Newbies are using bitcoin for the first time and are having a hard time, with their BTC tie up seemly never to confrim, and they conclude that bitcoin is not all that it's cracked up to be....
is this a problem?

I remember when i was a newbie, i would check over and over waiting for the first 6 confirmations, everything went smoothly, but I didnt fully trust that it would go smoothly, i was afraid my money would get lost or somthing. slowly my confidence in the system grew as i used it more and understood it more.

not sure i would have be able to build any confidence had i started using bitcoin today....
adamstgBit, you've hit it right on the head.  We must do everything we can to help folks adopt Bitcoin without pain/anxiety.  Our marketing messages need to set expectations appropriately; gone are the days of leading with the misleading "no fees".  It's ok to indicate lower fees than the competition, e.g. wire transfers, VISA, *if* it is indeed true but don't touch the topic if it is not -- if 5¢/transaction is the going fee then transactions less than say $5, i.e. 1%, make less sense.  Instead lead with our indisputable strengths, e.g. ~1 hour (6 blocks) to guarantee transfers of even large amounts anywhere in the world.  It is just unbelievable that there are wallets out there that don't set an appropriate fee automatically and by default such that transactions get through quickly despite the dynamic environment.  Once a new user grows accustom then they could dig in and find the overrides to try transactions with low/zero fees and see the natural consequences of long delays.
David Rabahy
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 709
Merit: 500



View Profile
March 08, 2016, 09:55:37 PM
 #128

why can't the other miners simply orphen these blocks?
Exactly how do you plan on "simply" detecting these blocks and why would somebody orphan them? How do you classify this as an attack; was the TX that F2Pool did to clear the spam also an attack?

somthing like  if TX has >10,000 inputs it's no good?

why not!? I wouldn't mind if F2Pool's tiny blocks were orphaned by other miners. maybe he'll stop making these tiny blocks if they do punish him for it?

oh wait i read that wrong....

again, WHY NOT!? the TX in question WAS an attack, why include in the blockchain?

if you can't be sure if its spam or not ( <1$ TX with 1cent fee ) fine included in the block, but if you are sure it is spam ( >10K inputs ) why include it?
That's interesting adamstgBit.  *Is* it *always* the case that >10K inputs is indeed spam?  *Is* there *ever* a case where it is not?  Can the same movements be accomplished by splitting it up into multiple transactions to avoid triggering the spam rejection?
adamstgBit
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1904
Merit: 1019


Trusted Bitcoiner


View Profile WWW
March 08, 2016, 09:59:34 PM
 #129

As hard as it might be to see, I really believe the crisis in front of us is one of perception as opposed to anything technical.  Perceptions are manageable while the real work of sorting through the technical issues is taken out of the limelight.

The network is working and it's still relatively cheap (5cents pre TX)
But we have threads that are titled " why is my TX not confirming ?? " or somthing to that effect
Newbies are using bitcoin for the first time and are having a hard time, with their BTC tie up seemly never to confrim, and they conclude that bitcoin is not all that it's cracked up to be....
is this a problem?

I remember when i was a newbie, i would check over and over waiting for the first 6 confirmations, everything went smoothly, but I didnt fully trust that it would go smoothly, i was afraid my money would get lost or somthing. slowly my confidence in the system grew as i used it more and understood it more.

not sure i would have be able to build any confidence had i started using bitcoin today....
adamstgBit, you've hit it right on the head.  We must do everything we can to help folks adopt Bitcoin without pain/anxiety.  Our marketing messages need to set expectations appropriately; gone are the days of leading with the misleading "no fees".  It's ok to indicate lower fees than the competition, e.g. wire transfers, VISA, *if* it is indeed true but don't touch the topic if it is not -- if 5¢/transaction is the going fee then transactions less than say $5, i.e. 1%, make less sense.  Instead lead with our indisputable strengths, e.g. ~1 hour (6 blocks) to guarantee transfers of even large amounts anywhere in the world.  It is just unbelievable that there are wallets out there that don't set an appropriate fee automatically and by default such that transactions get through quickly despite the dynamic environment.  Once a new user grows accustom then they could dig in and find the overrides to try transactions with low/zero fees and see the natural consequences of long delays.
I feel the core dev team is not willing to make the appropriate trade offs.
I do believe we could of had the 2MB limit inplace months ago and all this  pain/anxiety avoided.
but the Core dev team doesn't seem very concerned with end users pain/anxiety, as much as they are with theoretically more elegant scaling.
I feel they are programmers not qualified to manage and direct the project, and they are making bad decision, maybe the decision they make are technically more elegant, but they do not create a more elegant user experience. but they are convinced that the users dont matter because its Bitcoin's birth right to replace central banking.

David Rabahy
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 709
Merit: 500



View Profile
March 08, 2016, 10:02:06 PM
Last edit: March 08, 2016, 10:22:50 PM by David Rabahy
 #130

Listen everyone: *** Bitcoin is a fantastic thing!!! ***  Our internal debates are seen; they are taken as a measure of our ability to provide governance or not.  There are folks lurking in here; picking up on the mood and reporting on it.  Every posting should take this into account.

Championing Bitcoin first before espousing one technical aspect or another will help.

Avoiding the practice of nitpicking or worse will help.

Compromise and appeasement are valuable tools.
franky1
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2926
Merit: 1780



View Profile
March 08, 2016, 10:04:08 PM
Last edit: March 08, 2016, 10:18:31 PM by franky1
 #131

Well, franky1, that's really interesting (although it could have been said just as well without the provocative words); 2MB + SegWit.  We do want to be careful -- releasing multiple things at the same time can lead to confusion if things don't go perfectly well.  I'd hate to see something going wrong and each side blaming the other.  Also, if there would be a need to retract a feature/function then that would likely cause a media stir; something Bitcoin doesn't need anymore of at this time.

then we move onto the other debate. blockstream devs not only want segwit in april but some other changes within the same release.

one of them is actually debunks the "hard fork is doomsday".. because it, itself is a hardfork.
by which i mean luke Jr's proposal for code to be added in april with just a 3 month grace (activating at block 420,000) in the attempt to unnaturally drop the difficulty to allow miners to solve blocks easier. basically forcing blocks to be made in 5 minutes instead of 10, to allow an extra 2 weeks of similar income before natural biweekly difficulty adjustments raise the difficulty.

which apart from knowing its just a feature that has no long term purpose. the suggestion that a hardfork can be added in april with a 3 month grace totally contradicts the same devs who say that a hardfork which is not on the roadmap needs 12months grace..

but the ultimate thing that defies logic, is the solid faith that all code done by blockstream is perfect and any proposal outside of blockstream must be ruled out, veto'd, debated to cause contention and delay.

like i said a 2mb buffer is like the 1mb buffer in 2013. it wont cause a doubling of blocksize over night. as the miners will have preferential settings to grow slowly within the hard limit.

the code itself is simple to implement. and the only thing that can cause harm would be contention by those foolhardily refusing to upgrade when the majority have actually already upgraded.

thats why its better to have the code available to all and then let the community decide if they want it..
if no one wants it. it doesnt activate, its that simple rather then avoid and delay the code and cause the contention that they doomsday speak about. by never letting the community have access to it.(self fulfilling prophecy they created)

now that has been said. going back to the other stuff you have said
i would like to see the results of the tests you intend to do. as real results always outweigh opinion and guesswork. so your tests can actually help out alot of people

I DO NOT TRADE OR ACT AS ESCROW ON THIS FORUM EVER.
Please do your own research & respect what is written here as both opinion & information gleaned from experience. many people replying with insults but no on-topic content substance, automatically are 'facepalmed' and yawned at
David Rabahy
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 709
Merit: 500



View Profile
March 08, 2016, 10:12:07 PM
 #132

I feel the core dev team is not willing to make the appropriate trade offs.
I do believe we could of had the 2MB limit inplace months ago and all this pain/anxiety avoided.
but the Core dev team doesn't seem very concerned with end users pain/anxiety, as much as they are with theoretically more elegant scaling.
I feel they are programmers not qualified to manage and direct of the project, and they are making bad decision, maybe the decision they make are technically more elegant, but they are currently create a more elegant user experience. but they are convinced that the users dont matter because its Bitcoin birth right to replace central banking.
Bitcoin is up and running well (assuming one uses reasonable fees ~5¢/transaction) despite an onslaught of ill-intention persons.  Shame on all of us for not adjusting our marketing messages earlier to set expectations better.  Find me another system that has withstood as much and moves millions of dollars a day.

Who pays the Core Dev Team?  Are they doing all their work for Bitcoin for free?

My sincerest heartfelt praise and admiration go out to Core Dev Team members!  They are giving us something I couldn't do myself.  That said, I do think there's room for improvement on the handling of perceptions front.  I sincerely believe they have the overall good of Bitcoin *and* the users of it foremost in their minds.

Lauda has done a yeoman's job representing the positions; thank goodness someone has the patience.
David Rabahy
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 709
Merit: 500



View Profile
March 08, 2016, 10:17:33 PM
 #133

i would like to see the results of the tests you intend to do. as real results always outweigh opinion and guesswork. so your tests can actually help out alot of people
Although I am willing to participate in a test to measure the SigOp quadratic growth, I am not able without help.  If someone will build the code then I will install, run, and report back on it.
adamstgBit
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1904
Merit: 1019


Trusted Bitcoiner


View Profile WWW
March 08, 2016, 10:41:37 PM
 #134

I feel the core dev team is not willing to make the appropriate trade offs.
I do believe we could of had the 2MB limit inplace months ago and all this pain/anxiety avoided.
but the Core dev team doesn't seem very concerned with end users pain/anxiety, as much as they are with theoretically more elegant scaling.
I feel they are programmers not qualified to manage and direct of the project, and they are making bad decision, maybe the decision they make are technically more elegant, but they are currently create a more elegant user experience. but they are convinced that the users dont matter because its Bitcoin birth right to replace central banking.
Bitcoin is up and running well (assuming one uses reasonable fees ~5¢/transaction) despite an onslaught of ill-intention persons.  Shame on all of us for not adjusting our marketing messages earlier to set expectations better.  Find me another system that has withstood as much and moves millions of dollars a day.

Who pays the Core Dev Team?  Are they doing all their work for Bitcoin for free?

My sincerest heartfelt praise and admiration go out to Core Dev Team members!  They are giving us something I couldn't do myself.  That said, I do think there's room for improvement on the handling of perceptions front.  I sincerely believe they have the overall good of Bitcoin *and* the users of it foremost in their minds.

Lauda has done a yeoman's job representing the positions; thank goodness someone has the patience.

give it a few more days of debate, you'll see your optimism and praise will turn to anger and disgust. LOL  Grin

your a really nice guy, quite refreshing!

LEAVE THIS PLACE IMMEDIATELY, this is for your own good.

Lauda
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2674
Merit: 2746


Terminated.


View Profile WWW
March 08, 2016, 10:48:32 PM
 #135

That's interesting adamstgBit.  *Is* it *always* the case that >10K inputs is indeed spam?  *Is* there *ever* a case where it is not?  Can the same movements be accomplished by splitting it up into multiple transactions to avoid triggering the spam rejection?
These limitations are very bad. Wasn't Bitcoin supposed to be censorship free? Who gets to decide what kind of transactions we are going to limit? As an example, the sigops limitation that Gavin implemented in Classic is not a solution of any kind. For example, if we had confidential transactions today they would not work due to this. There are so many potential use cases that it is nearly impossible for us to consider everything.

Who pays the Core Dev Team?  Are they doing all their work for Bitcoin for free? My sincerest heartfelt praise and admiration go out to Core Dev Team members!  They are giving us something I couldn't do myself.  That said, I do think there's room for improvement on the handling of perceptions front.  I sincerely believe they have the overall good of Bitcoin *and* the users of it foremost in their minds.
They're a group of volunteers. Some are employed by MIT (Wladimir IIRC), and some are employed by Blockstream (Maxwell, Wuille) and such. However, most of them are just volunteers from what I know.

Lauda has done a yeoman's job representing the positions; thank goodness someone has the patience.
I try my best, as long as the other person (especially when lacking knowledge) is willing to listen to reason, facts, data and such.

"The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks"
😼 Bitcoin Core (onion)
adamstgBit
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1904
Merit: 1019


Trusted Bitcoiner


View Profile WWW
March 08, 2016, 10:51:36 PM
 #136

why can't the other miners simply orphen these blocks?
Exactly how do you plan on "simply" detecting these blocks and why would somebody orphan them? How do you classify this as an attack; was the TX that F2Pool did to clear the spam also an attack?

somthing like  if TX has >10,000 inputs it's no good?

why not!? I wouldn't mind if F2Pool's tiny blocks were orphaned by other miners. maybe he'll stop making these tiny blocks if they do punish him for it?

oh wait i read that wrong....

again, WHY NOT!? the TX in question WAS an attack, why include in the blockchain?

if you can't be sure if its spam or not ( <1$ TX with 1cent fee ) fine included in the block, but if you are sure it is spam ( >10K inputs ) why include it?
That's interesting adamstgBit.  *Is* it *always* the case that >10K inputs is indeed spam?  *Is* there *ever* a case where it is not?  Can the same movements be accomplished by splitting it up into multiple transactions to avoid triggering the spam rejection?

someone can probably come up with some highly speculative scenario where such a transaction could potently be useful
is that excuse a good reason to not protect the network against such an attack?

SpiryGolden
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812
Merit: 500



View Profile
March 08, 2016, 10:59:06 PM
 #137

Who pays the Core Dev Team?  Are they doing all their work for Bitcoin for free? My sincerest heartfelt praise and admiration go out to Core Dev Team members!  They are giving us something I couldn't do myself.  That said, I do think there's room for improvement on the handling of perceptions front.  I sincerely believe they have the overall good of Bitcoin *and* the users of it foremost in their minds.
They're a group of volunteers. Some are employed by MIT (Wladimir IIRC), and some are employed by Blockstream (Maxwell, Wuille) and such. However, most of them are just volunteers from what I know.



They are mostly Blockstream members. They are on payroll of bankers from VC's. Before somebody call me a liar. You can check out https://www.blockstream.com/team/ and then compare with https://bitcoin.org/en/development#bitcoin-core-contributors . I will stop coming into a conversation without proof. I hope that's good enough. It will never have an 2MB hardfork they will just give us breadcrumbs to shut up a bit while they are building solutions so people will go in wave to their solutions rather then stay on main chain. Transforming it in a settlement layer and absolute the P2P payment system and take it off-chain to their solution.

That's the last thing I had to say. No more involving in this subject, it drains me out of energy, it drains me out of patience. All I can do is keep my Bitcoin Classic nodes up and hope slowly other will join as more will be aware of the breadcrumbs were given. Dramatizing the whole increase of block size just because it's dangerous without any real and statistical answer while they forked when testing SegWit it says a lot.

Also they are a lot of Bitcoin Core supporters here while the whole board bitcointalk is 100% Bitcoin Core by just not offering people alternative solutions and advertising every update of Bitcoin Core while not offering people alternatives with proper explanation prooves again the control of mass and keeping it them blind against recent Bitcoin discussion. It absolute the whole idea of community of an free & open source project made by people for people. So Bitcoin Classic must somehow pay for advertising and inform people about the news and their right to choose, because other channels are trying to hide as much as possible the right to choose.

Thanks,
I wish both sides good luck and may the best chain win.

adamstgBit
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1904
Merit: 1019


Trusted Bitcoiner


View Profile WWW
March 08, 2016, 11:09:21 PM
 #138


These limitations are very bad. Wasn't Bitcoin supposed to be censorship free? Who gets to decide what kind of transactions we are going to limit?


this is a prime example of ivory tower thinking getting in the way of real solutions that matter to real poeple.


As an example, the sigops limitation that Gavin implemented in Classic is not a solution of any kind. For example, if we had confidential transactions today they would not work due to this. There are so many potential use cases that it is nearly impossible for us to consider everything.

this is a prime example of bad project management, we can't achieve any kind of consensus without first agreeing to what the main goals of the project is.

of course Gavin is doing things differently in classic his primary goal is to scale the blockchain as much as possible.

this is NOT the main goal of Core, which is fine, there second layer solution is fine, but it's simply not what the majority want...

Gleb Gamow
In memoriam
VIP
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1428
Merit: 1120



View Profile
March 08, 2016, 11:11:50 PM
 #139

I would be willing to run a full node on a testnet to see if my system could handle larger blocks, i.e. verify a large block in less than the average time between blocks.

I have a question:  The total amount work to verify N 1MB blocks is about the same as single N-MB block, right?  For example, 32 1MB blocks take about the same amount of work to verify as a single 32MB block, right?  Just please ignore the live delivery of blocks for the moment.  Or is there some advantage to large blocks where less headers have to be processed.  Imagine a full node was off the air for a day or two and is just trying to catch up as fast as possible.  What block size facilitates that best?

To me it seems fees tend to be inversely proportional to block size, i.e. with smaller blocks fees rise as folks compete to get into blocks, with larger blocks fees get smaller with less competition to get into blocks.  What does it cost a bad actor (if there is truly such a thing in this realm) to clog up the works?  I suppose we are looking for the right size of block to cause them to expend their resources most quickly.  Make the block size very small and the fee competition would rise high enough to deplete the bad actor very fast; everyone suffers higher fees until they are run out of town (so to speak).  Hmm, but if the block size is very small then even when there aren't any bad actors on the scene, regular legit users would be forced to compete.  At the other end of the spectrum; make the block size very large and with such low competition fees would diminish.  The real question here is what happens to the fees/MB across the spectrum of block sizes.

Is there *anyone* preferring a smaller than 1MB block size right now?  I haven't heard of any but you never know.  I do think some miners do artificially constrain the block size they produce to like 900KB or so (I'm not sure of their motivation).  Even if the block size were increased then such miners could still constrain the ones they produce, right?

A transaction cannot span multiple blocks, right?  I suppose the block size creates a functional limit on transaction sizes.  Or is the size of a transaction constrained some other way?

Odd! I find this post more similar to Satoshi Nakamoto's writings that the letter in the OP supposedly sent to Mike Hearn by SN which I contend was written by MH. (see my earlier post in this thread)
adamstgBit
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1904
Merit: 1019


Trusted Bitcoiner


View Profile WWW
March 08, 2016, 11:29:39 PM
 #140

Who pays the Core Dev Team?  Are they doing all their work for Bitcoin for free? My sincerest heartfelt praise and admiration go out to Core Dev Team members!  They are giving us something I couldn't do myself.  That said, I do think there's room for improvement on the handling of perceptions front.  I sincerely believe they have the overall good of Bitcoin *and* the users of it foremost in their minds.
They're a group of volunteers. Some are employed by MIT (Wladimir IIRC), and some are employed by Blockstream (Maxwell, Wuille) and such. However, most of them are just volunteers from what I know.

They are mostly Blockstream members. They are on payroll of bankers from VC's. Before somebody call me a liar. You can check out https://www.blockstream.com/team/ and then compare with https://bitcoin.org/en/development#bitcoin-core-contributors . I will stop coming into a conversation without proof. I hope that's good enough. It will never have an 2MB hardfork they will just give us breadcrumbs to shut up a bit while they are building solutions so people will go in wave to their solutions rather then stay on main chain. Transforming it in a settlement layer and absolute the P2P payment system and take it off-chain to their solution.

That's the last thing I had to say. No more involving in this subject, it drains me out of energy, it drains me out of patience. All I can do is keep my Bitcoin Classic nodes up and hope slowly other will join as more will be aware of the breadcrumbs were given. Dramatizing the whole increase of block size just because it's dangerous without any real and statistical answer while they forked when testing SegWit it says a lot.

Also they are a lot of Bitcoin Core supporters here while the whole board bitcointalk is 100% Bitcoin Core by just not offering people alternative solutions and advertising every update of Bitcoin Core while not offering people alternatives with proper explanation prooves again the control of mass and keeping it them blind against recent Bitcoin discussion. It absolute the whole idea of community of an free & open source project made by people for people. So Bitcoin Classic must somehow pay for advertising and inform people about the news and their right to choose, because other channels are trying to hide as much as possible the right to choose.

Thanks,
I wish both sides good luck and may the best chain win. 

+1

@David Rabahy, this is all true, read it and understand why we are out of patience.

David Rabahy
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 709
Merit: 500



View Profile
March 08, 2016, 11:59:18 PM
 #141

They are mostly Blockstream members. They are on payroll of bankers from VC's. Before somebody call me a liar. You can check out https://www.blockstream.com/team/ and then compare with https://bitcoin.org/en/development#bitcoin-core-contributors. I will stop coming into a conversation without proof.
From the former;

Adam Back, Ph.D.
Matt Corallo
Johnny Dilley
Alex Fowler
Mark Friedenbach
Ben Gorlick
Francesca Hall
Austin Hill
Gregory Maxwell *195
James Murdock
Jonas Nick
Rusty Russell
Gregory Sanders
Patrick Strateman *37
Erik Svenson
Warren Togami *12
Jorge Timón *112
Jonathan Wilkins
Glenn Willen *1
Pieter Wuille, Ph.D. *966

* found in the latter; (# of commits).
David Rabahy
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 709
Merit: 500



View Profile
March 09, 2016, 12:13:46 AM
 #142

Bitcoin Core contributors (Ordered by number of commits);

Wladimir J. van der Laan (3398)
Gavin Andresen (1100)
Pieter Wuille (966)
Cory Fields (332)
TheBlueMatt (288)
jonasschnelli (246)
Luke-Jr (239)
Gregory Maxwell (195)
MarcoFalke (128)
fanquake (118)
jtimon (112)
Peter Todd (92)
cozz (70)
sdaftuar (69)
morcos (59)
paveljanik (52)
pstratem (37)
muggenhor (34)
Eric Lombrozo (32)
rebroad (28)
domob1812 (25)
Michagogo (24)
dooglus (22)
dexX7 (20)
dgenr8 (18)
super3 (16)
kdomanski (15)
casey (15)
xanatos (14)
ENikS (13)
wtogami (12)
codler (10)
btcdrak (10)
wizeman (10)
maaku (10)
rnicoll (9)
ajweiss (8)
roques (8)
jamesob (8)
jmcorgan (8)
jordanlewis (8)
21E14 (8)
devrandom (8)
joshtriplett (8)
Nils Schneider (7)
forrestv (7)
freewil (7)
rat4 (7)
sinetek (7)
dcousens (7)
sje397 (7)
celil-kj (7)
sandakersmann (7)
runeksvendsen (7)
mrbandrews (7)
OttoAllmendinger (6)
mgiuca (6)
Matoking (6)
vegard (6)
zw (6)
p2k (6)
JoelKatz (6)
jrmithdobbs (6)
ashleyholman (6)
dertin (6)
Andreas Schildbach (6)
mndrix (5)
r000n (5)
roybadami (5)
vinniefalco (5)
Whit Jack (5)
fcicq (5)
ptschip (5)
maraoz (5)
federicobond (5)
alexanderkjeldaas (5)
robbak (5)
rdponticelli (5)
...
sorry I ran out of gas/time.  So, pretty clearly "most" don't appear on the link from Blockstream.
Crazygreek
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 378
Merit: 251


View Profile
March 09, 2016, 01:36:39 AM
 #143

In order to be able to scale larger than Visa network, Bitcoin needs to offer something more concurrent than Visa network. Right now even the block size problem has no chosen way of resolving, and Visa offers absolutely incomparable amount of transactions per hour. Until this problem and many others get resolved, Bitcoin has nothing to offer against Visa.

chopstick
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 992
Merit: 1000


View Profile
March 09, 2016, 01:52:18 AM
 #144

In order to be able to scale larger than Visa network, Bitcoin needs to offer something more concurrent than Visa network. Right now even the block size problem has no chosen way of resolving, and Visa offers absolutely incomparable amount of transactions per hour. Until this problem and many others get resolved, Bitcoin has nothing to offer against Visa.

From the man satoshi himself:

"The existing Visa credit card network processes about 15 million Internet purchases per day worldwide. Bitcoin can already scale much larger than that with existing hardware for a fraction of the cost. It never really hits a scale ceiling." - Satoshi

"The eventual solution will be to not care how big the blockchain gets." - Satoshi

https://forum.bitcoin.com/bitcoin-discussion/the-eventual-solution-will-be-to-not-care-how-big-it-the-bitcoin-blockchain-gets-t6196.html

Satoshi intended for everything to be on the blockchain. He knew node operators would eventually need to be datacenter-size, but still, it's a problem that is many many years off. There is no reason not to increase the blocksize right now to 2mb, since it won't hurt node operators right now at that level. Unless of course your whole business model is to profit eternally off sidechains *cough borgstream cough*.




chopstick
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 992
Merit: 1000


View Profile
March 09, 2016, 01:53:56 AM
 #145

By the way, the satoshi quotes posted in this thread have now been deleted numerous times off of r/bitcoin

Censorship in action.

All hail our new Blockstream overlords... resistance is futile

I think that is what  they are trying to say anyway.



johnyj
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1904
Merit: 1006


Beyond Imagination


View Profile
March 09, 2016, 02:11:08 AM
 #146

Everyone that is against core's road map is wrong, including Satoshi

adamstgBit
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1904
Merit: 1019


Trusted Bitcoiner


View Profile WWW
March 09, 2016, 02:11:54 AM
 #147

Bitcoin Core contributors (Ordered by number of commits);

Wladimir J. van der Laan (3398)
Gavin Andresen (1100)
Pieter Wuille (966)
Cory Fields (332)
TheBlueMatt (288)
jonasschnelli (246)
Luke-Jr (239)
Gregory Maxwell (195)
MarcoFalke (128)
fanquake (118)
jtimon (112)
...
...
sorry I ran out of gas/time.  So, pretty clearly "most" don't appear on the link from Blockstream.

notice how Gavin Andresen appears in your list but is no longer allowed to commit anything to Blockstream i mean bitcoinCore

adamstgBit
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1904
Merit: 1019


Trusted Bitcoiner


View Profile WWW
March 09, 2016, 02:15:46 AM
 #148

I sincerely believe they have the overall good of Bitcoin *and* the users of it foremost in their minds.

I believe the good in poeple, gets ripped away when there's less than 50$ on the table.

franky1
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2926
Merit: 1780



View Profile
March 09, 2016, 02:32:56 AM
 #149


notice how Gavin Andresen appears in your list but is no longer allowed to commit anything to Blockstream i mean bitcoinCore


notice how adam back(blockstream) has not been shown to be involved in bitcoin... yet.. well shhhh lets not say

there are othernames too. but shhh lets not say, lets instead pretend that blockstream doesnt have veto power

I DO NOT TRADE OR ACT AS ESCROW ON THIS FORUM EVER.
Please do your own research & respect what is written here as both opinion & information gleaned from experience. many people replying with insults but no on-topic content substance, automatically are 'facepalmed' and yawned at
AliceWonderMiscreations
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 182
Merit: 100


View Profile WWW
March 09, 2016, 03:01:27 AM
 #150

Gavin is hoping that everyone is going to want to see "The Return Of The King" but I think that most of us actually would prefer to listen to a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Farewell_to_Kings.

Indeed, one of their best albums.

I hereby reserve the right to sometimes be wrong
AliceWonderMiscreations
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 182
Merit: 100


View Profile WWW
March 09, 2016, 03:14:49 AM
 #151

So, one very large transaction with numerous sigops leads to the quadratic growth.  Hmm, so blindly increasing the block size is asking for trouble.  How many of these troublesome transactions are launched against us recently?  Or is it an unexploited vulnerability?
Perhaps we could increase the block size *and* constrain sigops/transaction until we get SegWit out the door?
Well the problem is only minor at a 1 MB block size limit. Segwit should scale it down and make it linear. It should be released in April (from the initial estimates), so I don't see how you plan to deploy the block size limit and a sigops limitation in <2 months.

and now you see why a 2mb+segwit released in april with 6month grace is not a problem

i love it when lauda debunks his own doomsday scenario

having the 2mb block limit included in aprils release is easy. plus it incentivises more people to download the april version ensuring a real chance of no contention, instead of having upgrades every couple months EG march april july. which just mess with the community too much

That is a valid point. There is no reason why the code can't be in the April client, with miners only triggered to make the big blocks if there is both consensus (95%) *and* nearly full blocks.

That way if segwit does what we believe it will, the 2MB blocks never happen. But if number of transactions making it into blocks is large enough that even with segwit the blocks are full, the code is already in the clients.

I hereby reserve the right to sometimes be wrong
AliceWonderMiscreations
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 182
Merit: 100


View Profile WWW
March 09, 2016, 03:18:59 AM
 #152

For example, trigger the 2MB fork iff the last 1000 blocks used > 920 MB. That's about a weeks worth of blocks.

EDIT
Specify the check to happen every 1000 blocks starting from block X.

Once it happens, the next version of the client can just hard code 2 MB since checking every 1k blocks from X will always result in a true.

I hereby reserve the right to sometimes be wrong
BTCBinary
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 504
Merit: 500


View Profile
March 09, 2016, 03:51:46 AM
 #153

It seems to me that this explains a lot and why a block size increase is perfectly clear to solve the blocksize problem as well as the fee charge increase.
franky1
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2926
Merit: 1780



View Profile
March 09, 2016, 04:22:06 AM
 #154

For example, trigger the 2MB fork iff the last 1000 blocks used > 920 MB. That's about a weeks worth of blocks.

EDIT
Specify the check to happen every 1000 blocks starting from block X.

Once it happens, the next version of the client can just hard code 2 MB since checking every 1k blocks from X will always result in a true.

easier to code something like. current block minus 1000 that way its checking the last 1000 blocks constantly. rather then a precise group (which can be attacked)

EG if it was check block 415000 to 416000 then miners could play around and make small 415000-415500 then have 500 large blocks.
then the following week have 416000-416500 as large blocks and then 500 small blocks. which would not cause the trigger because
415000-416000 only has 500large blocks
416000-417000 only has 500large blocks

but it it is checking the last recent 1000 blocks. then at 416500 it sees there are 1000 large blocks going all the way back to 415500

and as for the 95%.. well no where is it ever possible to get 95%. not even core v0.12 combined with v0.11 has 95% yet they claim they are the consensus.

a fairer measure is 75%, because. after all 75% is not the active trigger, it is just the loading of the gun. giving people 3months(lukejr's estimates) 6months(my preference) 12months(blockstream preference) to upgrade and become statistics above 75% before the trigger is pulled

I DO NOT TRADE OR ACT AS ESCROW ON THIS FORUM EVER.
Please do your own research & respect what is written here as both opinion & information gleaned from experience. many people replying with insults but no on-topic content substance, automatically are 'facepalmed' and yawned at
SpiryGolden
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812
Merit: 500



View Profile
March 09, 2016, 04:34:26 AM
 #155

Everyone that is against core's road map is wrong, including Satoshi

See? This is the ideology that has poisoned the whole Blockstream supporters. I can't call it Bitcoin Core anymore. Cause it's to obvious.

This kind of ideology. This requires a change! We need to switch to Bitcoin Classic as soon as possible. SegWit will be there also.
AliceWonderMiscreations
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 182
Merit: 100


View Profile WWW
March 09, 2016, 05:11:59 AM
 #156

and as for the 95%.. well no where is it ever possible to get 95%. not even core v0.12 combined with v0.11 has 95% yet they claim they are the consensus.

a fairer measure is 75%, because. after all 75% is not the active trigger, it is just the loading of the gun. giving people 3months(lukejr's estimates) 6months(my preference) 12months(blockstream preference) to upgrade and become statistics above 75% before the trigger is pulled

Clients don't matter all that much, it's 95% of miners that really matter. With only a small percentage of miners reject 2MB blocks the fork that rejects > 1 MB blocks will be incredibly slow causing clients to update.

I hereby reserve the right to sometimes be wrong
Lauda
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2674
Merit: 2746


Terminated.


View Profile WWW
March 09, 2016, 06:59:16 AM
 #157

this is a prime example of ivory tower thinking getting in the way of real solutions that matter to real poeple.
No. You don't get to define what we allow in the system and what we don't, certainly not when it was possible all this time. What Gavin proposed is a hacky workaround, nothing more.

this is a prime example of bad project management, we can't achieve any kind of consensus without first agreeing to what the main goals of the project is.
Stop being greedy and stop wanting everyone to use Bitcoin just because the price would be high. This would help you see things more clearly.

Censorship in action.
If censorship was present, you would have been banned long ago for mentioning anything, ergo it isn't.

This kind of ideology. This requires a change! We need to switch to Bitcoin Classic as soon as possible. SegWit will be there also.
No. Contentious HF's are what got us here in the first place.

"The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks"
😼 Bitcoin Core (onion)
ATguy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 424
Merit: 250



View Profile
March 09, 2016, 07:48:28 AM
 #158

this is a prime example of bad project management, we can't achieve any kind of consensus without first agreeing to what the main goals of the project is.
Stop being greedy and stop wanting everyone to use Bitcoin just because the price would be high. This would help you see things more clearly.

The problem is there are people who want regulate how many people can use Bitcoin by keeping current blocksize limit. The most obvious conflict of interest are altcoins which can only get used more at the Bitcoin expence, and those who invested in Bitcoin (speculative or in infrastructure) are mostly not in favour of artifically limited blocksize because it restrict how many people can conveniently use Bitcoin.

The question is not whether Bitcoin can scale to the Visa network but whether Bitcoin can scale to just keep up the demand, because there is not such high demand for Bitcoin to be used for Visa levels in near future. And im sure the answer is yes.

.Liqui Exchange.Trade and earn 24% / year on BTC, LTC, ETH
....Brand NEW..........................................Payouts every 24h. Learn more at official thread
SpiryGolden
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812
Merit: 500



View Profile
March 09, 2016, 08:05:18 AM
Last edit: March 09, 2016, 08:16:45 AM by SpiryGolden
 #159


This kind of ideology. This requires a change! We need to switch to Bitcoin Classic as soon as possible. SegWit will be there also.
No. Contentious HF's are what got us here in the first place.


Oh that's Core plan if Classic will have the majority?. Other then that I do not see any danger if people could get a long and let Bitcoin , be Bitcoin! That's it. For real. Lets be humans for a moment. This is what Bitcoin was meant to be. You guys just want it to be your play toy with weak arguments pushing off-chain solution promoted ...be we know who. So yes. Let Bitcoin be pure Bitcoin. And other off-chain solution to be off-chain in their own eco-system.

What is so hard to be understood? This is the Bitcoin experience. When you first found out about Bitcoin, I am sure you were aware of all this and the fact that Hard Forks are a necessity in evolution of a great software.

SegWit forked, that was it! Simple as that, they didn't even knew what was the reason behind it, it won't be ready for April and the roadmap will remain just dust in eyes.

We need to see the reality and again to respect Bitcoin vision since it's creation. Block Size increase via Hard fork was on roadmap since Satoshi made the limit itself. Classic already gained 25% of nodes + other nodes in a quantum of 31% of network. While Bitcoin Core is losing ground every day. Once it goes 50/50 I can say Bitcoin Core is doomed to be left behind. And I can see it happen in maximum 1 month more probably when Bitcoin Core will fail to launch Segwit on time.
Lauda
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2674
Merit: 2746


Terminated.


View Profile WWW
March 09, 2016, 08:19:20 AM
 #160

What is so hard to be understood? This is the Bitcoin experience. When you first found out about Bitcoin, I am sure you were aware of all this and the fact that Hard Forks are a necessity in evolution of a great software.
They aren't. I have no idea where you got that from.

SegWit forked, that was it! Simple as that, they didn't even knew what was the reason behind it, it won't be ready for April and the roadmap will remain just dust in eyes.
This is a very bad FUD attempt. It happened due to some people running an older version (there were changes between v2 and v3). In other words, it is irrelevant as this won't and can't happen on the main net.

The question is not whether Bitcoin can scale to the Visa network but whether Bitcoin can scale to just keep up the demand, because there is not such high demand for Bitcoin to be used for Visa levels in near future. And im sure the answer is yes.
You can't know that because of two reasons (as an example, they are more): 1) You don't know what the demand is represented as (e.g. TX volume? Not necessarily as somebody could be creating a lot of TXs themselves) nor how much demand there is going to be; 2) You don't know how the technology is going to improve over the years. Anyhow, with Segwit around the corner I don't understand any 'urgency' for a 2 MB block size limit.

"The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks"
😼 Bitcoin Core (onion)
ATguy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 424
Merit: 250



View Profile
March 09, 2016, 08:33:24 AM
 #161

of course Gavin is doing things differently in classic his primary goal is to scale the blockchain as much as possible.

this is NOT the main goal of Core, which is fine, there second layer solution is fine, but it's simply not what the majority want...


I agree second layer is fine, but people should choose it because it is better than decentralized onchain transactions, not just because the the blocksize is artifically limited so they have no other choice.



Bitcoin is up and running well (assuming one uses reasonable fees ~5¢/transaction) despite an onslaught of ill-intention persons.  Shame on all of us for not adjusting our marketing messages earlier to set expectations better.  Find me another system that has withstood as much and moves millions of dollars a day.

Who pays the Core Dev Team?  Are they doing all their work for Bitcoin for free?

My sincerest heartfelt praise and admiration go out to Core Dev Team members!  They are giving us something I couldn't do myself.  That said, I do think there's room for improvement on the handling of perceptions front.  I sincerely believe they have the overall good of Bitcoin *and* the users of it foremost in their minds.

Lauda has done a yeoman's job representing the positions; thank goodness someone has the patience.

give it a few more days of debate, you'll see your optimism and praise will turn to anger and disgust. LOL  Grin


This, unless one know the big picture it is easy to tell Bitcoin is working well. Because it is now, but it is supposed to be just settlement layer for offchain transactions with hundred times more expensive onchain fees because of artifficial blocksize limit. So say good bye affordable decentralized onchain transactions if this vision comes true, and be ready for just another centralized offchain solutions!

Here is the suggested plan explained by Bitmain's Jihan Wu at 8btc he got from core representatives at recent Hong Kong meeting:

https://np.reddit.com/r/BitcoinMarkets/comments/48kf18/daily_discussion_wednesday_march_02_2016/d0krl0w

Quote
During the Hong Kong meeting, the answer provided by Core reps is that the future Lightning Network would increase capacity a thousandfold - that up to tens of thousands of transactions can be completed on the lightning network and settled with one on chain transaction. Assuming that current transaction fees are 0.3 RMB, and assuming that 1000 lightning transactions can be settled by one blockchain transaction, then we can raise fees for on chain transactions to 30 RMB (100x increase), while each transaction on the lightning network would only cost a tenth of current fees and increase miner revenue a hundredfold.

.Liqui Exchange.Trade and earn 24% / year on BTC, LTC, ETH
....Brand NEW..........................................Payouts every 24h. Learn more at official thread
SpiryGolden
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812
Merit: 500



View Profile
March 09, 2016, 08:37:47 AM
 #162

What is so hard to be understood? This is the Bitcoin experience. When you first found out about Bitcoin, I am sure you were aware of all this and the fact that Hard Forks are a necessity in evolution of a great software.
They aren't. I have no idea where you got that from.

SegWit forked, that was it! Simple as that, they didn't even knew what was the reason behind it, it won't be ready for April and the roadmap will remain just dust in eyes.
This is a very bad FUD attempt. It happened due to some people running an older version (there were changes between v2 and v3). In other words, it is irrelevant as this won't and can't happen on the main net.


Resistence is futile my friend. We don't want to rag down Bitcoin, like an old car trying to make engine work with a simple rag. That's what SegWit is now for a solution that must be implemented. You guys are so delusional that you actually dissed Satoshi Nakamoto, it's clearly that your vision is not about Bitcoin anymore. If you don't like that, please move to any shillcoins you wish and play with those. But this is Bitcoin. Even more shocking I heard from Core supporters dismissing Moore Law's. So what's next you got the solution to E=MC2 and Einstein was an idiot?.
Lauda
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2674
Merit: 2746


Terminated.


View Profile WWW
March 09, 2016, 08:44:37 AM
 #163

Resistence is futile my friend. We don't want to rag down Bitcoin, like an old car trying to make engine work with a simple rag. That's what SegWit is now for a solution that must be implemented. You guys are so delusional that you actually dissed Satoshi Nakamoto, it's clearly that your vision is not about Bitcoin anymore. But this is Bitcoin.
This is among the worst attempts at rebuttal that I've recently seen. Segwit is an improvement to scalability, a 2 MB block size limit isn't. You can't change the facts regardless of what nonsense you try to feed to the majority. The debate has become nonsense. 'Big blockists' wanted more capacity -> Core provides (will) this capacity with Segwit -> 'Big blockists' continue complaining. This does not make much sense?

If you don't like that, please move to any shillcoins you wish and play with those.
Which is exactly what Classic is.

Even more shocking I heard from Core supporters dismissing Moore Law's. So what's next you got the solution to E=MC2 and Einstein was an idiot?.
This has to be a joke as you obviously have very limited knowledge in this field. Even Moore himself said that it not a law but rather a self-fulfilling prophecy.

"The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks"
😼 Bitcoin Core (onion)
SpiryGolden
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812
Merit: 500



View Profile
March 09, 2016, 08:55:06 AM
 #164


If you don't like that, please move to any shillcoins you wish and play with those.
Which is exactly what Classic is.


You're ignorance is amusing me. So that means Bitcoin Core = Shillcoin also? Cause it isn't Bitcoin .... is Bitcoin "Core" by Blockstream. So basically ....is ? C'mon say it. You trapped yourself into this one.  Cheesy

Good luck mate. For real I am sick of this. Bitcoin Classic will succeed I am sure of that and even more the whole community will he happy to get rid of them. 18% of nodes to convert to Bitcoin Classic and Core is over, losing majority. That simple and easy.

Kudos and don't get drunk with plain water is not good.
Lauda
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2674
Merit: 2746


Terminated.


View Profile WWW
March 09, 2016, 08:59:07 AM
 #165

Good luck mate. For real I am sick of this. Bitcoin Classic will succeed I am sure of that and even more the whole community will he happy to get rid of them.


Good luck, you will surely need it. Now since you don't use technical arguments or anything I'd ask you kindly to not derail this thread further. These is at least one person that seems decent in it and worth talking to.

"The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks"
😼 Bitcoin Core (onion)
BlindMayorBitcorn
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260
Merit: 1107



View Profile
March 09, 2016, 09:07:15 AM
 #166


Even more shocking I heard from Core supporters dismissing Moore Law's. So what's next you got the solution to E=MC2 and Einstein was an idiot?.
This has to be a joke as you obviously have very limited knowledge in this field. Even Moore himself said that it not a law but rather a self-fulfilling prophecy.

http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/02/moores-law-really-is-dead-this-time/

First slowing in the mid-’90s to two-year gaps, the rate at which tiny transistors compute isn’t accelerating. Soon, too, they’ll have to be so small they’re just a few molecules, perhaps not even effective. And they’re not getting cheaper. Moore saw the future 50 years ago, but we may soon need a different rubric for predicting progress.

Forgive my petulance and oft-times, I fear, ill-founded criticisms, and forgive me that I have, by this time, made your eyes and head ache with my long letter. But I cannot forgo hastily the pleasure and pride of thus conversing with you.
hv_
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1722
Merit: 657

Clean Code and Scale


View Profile WWW
March 09, 2016, 09:13:04 AM
 #167


Even more shocking I heard from Core supporters dismissing Moore Law's. So what's next you got the solution to E=MC2 and Einstein was an idiot?.
This has to be a joke as you obviously have very limited knowledge in this field. Even Moore himself said that it not a law but rather a self-fulfilling prophecy.

http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/02/moores-law-really-is-dead-this-time/

First slowing in the mid-’90s to two-year gaps, the rate at which tiny transistors compute isn’t accelerating. Soon, too, they’ll have to be so small they’re just a few molecules, perhaps not even effective. And they’re not getting cheaper. Moore saw the future 50 years ago, but we may soon need a different rubric for predicting progress.


.. just wait for the next quantum jump. It's coming ...

          ( Hope for Bitcoin as well ! )

Carpe diem  -  understand the White Paper and mine honest.
Memo: 1AHUYNJKPfY7PjVK1hNQFo5LrdGixuiybw  -  https://metanet.icu/
The simple way is the genius way - Satoshi's Rules: humana veris _
BlindMayorBitcorn
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260
Merit: 1107



View Profile
March 09, 2016, 09:16:36 AM
 #168


Forgive my petulance and oft-times, I fear, ill-founded criticisms, and forgive me that I have, by this time, made your eyes and head ache with my long letter. But I cannot forgo hastily the pleasure and pride of thus conversing with you.
Zarathustra
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1134
Merit: 1004



View Profile
March 09, 2016, 09:27:56 AM
 #169

Segwit is an improvement to scalability, a 2 MB block size limit isn't.

An improvement to scale offchain (altchain).
sgbett
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2072
Merit: 1060



View Profile
March 09, 2016, 10:41:21 AM
 #170

No. You don't get to define what we allow in the system and what we don't, certainly not when it was possible all this time. What Gavin proposed is a hacky workaround, nothing more

Setting a block size limit of 1MB was, and continues to be a hacky workaround.

Theory drives development, but in practice sometimes hacky workarounds are needed.

I write code, I'd prefer it was all perfect. I run a business which means sometimes I have to consider bottom line. If a risk is identified and a quick fix is available it makes economic sense to apply the quick fix whilst working on a more robust long term solution.

That this has not been done inevitably leads people to question why. It's the answers that have been given to those questions that are causing the most difficulty. The fact that when those answers are challenged the story changes. The fact that the answers are inconsistent with what seems logical to any reasonably minded impartial observer.

The most important thing is that until about a year ago there was near unanimous agreement on what the purpose of the block size limit was, and how it would be dealt with. yet here we are today with this action having not been taken and a group of people actively trying to convince everyone that centralised enforcement of a block size limit is somehow the natural bahaviour if the system, despite it having never been so in its entire history.

The block size limit was a hacky workaround to the expensive to validate issue. An issue that is now mitigated by other much better solutions, not least a well incentivised distributed mining economy. That is now smart enough to route around such an attack, making it prohibitively expensive to maintain.

Individual economic self interest is how Bitcoin is supposed to work.

It's time to remove the bandaid.

When the curtain is pulled back you will see how powerful the wizard really isn't.


"A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution" - Satoshi Nakamoto
*my posts are not investment advice*
hv_
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1722
Merit: 657

Clean Code and Scale


View Profile WWW
March 09, 2016, 12:10:48 PM
 #171

Bitcoin Core contributors (Ordered by number of commits);

Wladimir J. van der Laan (3398)
Gavin Andresen (1100)
Pieter Wuille (966)
Cory Fields (332)
TheBlueMatt (288)
jonasschnelli (246)
Luke-Jr (239)
Gregory Maxwell (195)
MarcoFalke (128)
fanquake (118)
jtimon (112)
Peter Todd (92)
cozz (70)
sdaftuar (69)
morcos (59)
paveljanik (52)
pstratem (37)
muggenhor (34)
Eric Lombrozo (32)
rebroad (28)
domob1812 (25)
Michagogo (24)
dooglus (22)
dexX7 (20)
dgenr8 (18)
super3 (16)
kdomanski (15)
casey (15)
xanatos (14)
ENikS (13)
wtogami (12)
codler (10)
btcdrak (10)
wizeman (10)
maaku (10)
rnicoll (9)
ajweiss (Cool
roques (Cool
jamesob (Cool
jmcorgan (Cool
jordanlewis (Cool
21E14 (Cool
devrandom (Cool
joshtriplett (Cool
Nils Schneider (7)
forrestv (7)
freewil (7)
rat4 (7)
sinetek (7)
dcousens (7)
sje397 (7)
celil-kj (7)
sandakersmann (7)
runeksvendsen (7)
mrbandrews (7)
OttoAllmendinger (6)
mgiuca (6)
Matoking (6)
vegard (6)
zw (6)
p2k (6)
JoelKatz (6)
jrmithdobbs (6)
ashleyholman (6)
dertin (6)
Andreas Schildbach (6)
mndrix (5)
r000n (5)
roybadami (5)
vinniefalco (5)
Whit Jack (5)
fcicq (5)
ptschip (5)
maraoz (5)
federicobond (5)
alexanderkjeldaas (5)
robbak (5)
rdponticelli (5)
...
sorry I ran out of gas/time.  So, pretty clearly "most" don't appear on the link from Blockstream.


Page 43 you'll find some graph. And this doc is very interesting at all (also Visa can be found in that ...)

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/492972/gs-16-1-distributed-ledger-technology.pdf

Carpe diem  -  understand the White Paper and mine honest.
Memo: 1AHUYNJKPfY7PjVK1hNQFo5LrdGixuiybw  -  https://metanet.icu/
The simple way is the genius way - Satoshi's Rules: humana veris _
Lauda
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2674
Merit: 2746


Terminated.


View Profile WWW
March 09, 2016, 01:11:29 PM
 #172

Setting a block size limit of 1MB was, and continues to be a hacky workaround.
It is certainly not a hacky workaround. It is a limit that was needed (it still is for the time being).

Theory drives development, but in practice sometimes hacky workarounds are needed.
If it can be avoided, not really.

The block size limit was a hacky workaround to the expensive to validate issue. An issue that is now mitigated by other much better solutions, not least a well incentivised distributed mining economy. That is now smart enough to route around such an attack, making it prohibitively expensive to maintain.
So exactly what is the plan, replace one "hacky workaround" with another? Quite a lovely way forward. Segwit is being delivered and it will ease the validation problem and increase the transaction capacity. What is the problem exactly?


"The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks"
😼 Bitcoin Core (onion)
franky1
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2926
Merit: 1780



View Profile
March 09, 2016, 02:42:52 PM
 #173

What is so hard to be understood? This is the Bitcoin experience. When you first found out about Bitcoin, I am sure you were aware of all this and the fact that Hard Forks are a necessity in evolution of a great software.
They aren't. I have no idea where you got that from.

hard forks are not needed?
so the 2013 event due to the database bug. if not hard forked we would be stuck at 500kb blocks
so the earlier event where extra bitcoins were made if we didnt hard fork the rules of the 21mill cap would be broken

if any bug appears in the future? should we just live with it? by your logic yes, by my logic no
use logic not blockstream fanboyism

SegWit forked, that was it! Simple as that, they didn't even knew what was the reason behind it, it won't be ready for April and the roadmap will remain just dust in eyes.
This is a very bad FUD attempt. It happened due to some people running an older version (there were changes between v2 and v3). In other words, it is irrelevant as this won't and can't happen on the main net.
so hard forks can happen by some upgrading to cause a hard fork by voting for the change.. and some hard forks happen because people dont want the change.

so are you advocating that people should upgrade and accept change, or not upgrade and stick with old rules.. in both cases you have proven that a hard fork would still happen.
again use logic not blockstream fanboyism

The question is not whether Bitcoin can scale to the Visa network but whether Bitcoin can scale to just keep up the demand, because there is not such high demand for Bitcoin to be used for Visa levels in near future. And im sure the answer is yes.
You can't know that because of two reasons (as an example, they are more): 1) You don't know what the demand is represented as (e.g. TX volume? Not necessarily as somebody could be creating a lot of TXs themselves) nor how much demand there is going to be; 2) You don't know how the technology is going to improve over the years. Anyhow, with Segwit around the corner I don't understand any 'urgency' for a 2 MB block size limit.
and now you know why we need a BUFFER. to allow for natural growth when it happens instead of endless begging for minimal growth every 2 years.

2mb+segwit offers 4times the POTENTIAL.. meaning instead of 2000tx potential. there can be 8000tx potential. it does not mean blocks need to be filled by 8000 transactions as of summer 2017. it just means that blocks can grow slowly and naturally from 2000 to 8000 as and when needed at thier own natural pace without having to cry to blockstream every few months asking for an upgrade from 2000 to 2200, 2200 to 2400 but only getting them small movements every couple years

I DO NOT TRADE OR ACT AS ESCROW ON THIS FORUM EVER.
Please do your own research & respect what is written here as both opinion & information gleaned from experience. many people replying with insults but no on-topic content substance, automatically are 'facepalmed' and yawned at
franky1
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2926
Merit: 1780



View Profile
March 09, 2016, 02:55:31 PM
 #174

This has to be a joke as you obviously have very limited knowledge in this field. Even Moore himself said that it not a law but rather a self-fulfilling prophecy.

have you read a single line of bitcoin code yet or do you need to ask blockstream what language it is wrote in.


have you even got a full node running or still unsure how long it takes to sync the blockchain


would you run that future intended full node you want to have on your own computer, or run it remotely on amazon server?

i think Lauda has consumed too many people into his rhetoric, when in actual fact he knows very little and is just a mouth piece for blockstream

here is a summary of the debunks of literally every doomsday scenario Lauda has attempted to inflict on the community to sway people away from blockstreams agenda(roadmap)

though classic is one implementation. there is alot of background drama involved. so what could be done better is to get the programmers of bitcoinj, btcd, and the other main implementations to go for 2mb aswell. and find a way to get blockstream to come to their senses to have 2mb aswell.

things like debunking the 12month grace hard fork contention argument, by using luke jr's proposal of a different hard fork(difficulty drop) that he feels can happily become active in 3 months after code release.(if luke thinks 3months is acceptable. then no reason to go for 12, if luke wants hiscode in april then 2mb can be in april too)

things like debunking validation issues by highlighting that libsecp256k1 offers 5x validation speeds. making total of 10,000 signatures validate in april 2016, in the same time it takes 2000 signatures to validate in january 2016. thus allowing for more then a small bit of growth

things like debunking the hard drive storage bloat, with stats that 1mb has maxmimum yearly 100% filled blocks rate of 52.5gb. 2mb=105gb 4mb=210mb
so a 2tb hard drive at $100 can store 40 years of 1mb, 20 years of 2mb and 10 years of 4mb(2mb+segwit)

things like debunking user upload speeds causing relay delays. by stating that millions of people can happily play an online game, while in a voiceoverIP group chat. while livestreaming the game to youtube or twitch, all of which are upload activities. 750kbps= ~93 kByte/s = ~56mb every 10 minutes

I DO NOT TRADE OR ACT AS ESCROW ON THIS FORUM EVER.
Please do your own research & respect what is written here as both opinion & information gleaned from experience. many people replying with insults but no on-topic content substance, automatically are 'facepalmed' and yawned at
Laosai
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 462
Merit: 250


View Profile
March 09, 2016, 02:57:15 PM
 #175

Satoshi was wrong about so many things.

And yet so many people are keeping to his words like it's some kind of sacred text :/

pedrog
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2520
Merit: 1011



View Profile
March 09, 2016, 03:06:52 PM
 #176

Satoshi was wrong about so many things.

And yet so many people are keeping to his words like it's some kind of sacred text :/

That's because we came to bitcoin on Satoshi's vision, and we still care for that vision, Bitcoin should fail or succeed by that vision.

The people currently in charge have a different vision for bitcoin, they should instead, like so many other people, build their own alternative system and let bitcoin be what it was supposed to be.

franky1
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2926
Merit: 1780



View Profile
March 09, 2016, 03:14:11 PM
 #177

Satoshi was wrong about so many things.

And yet so many people are keeping to his words like it's some kind of sacred text :/

because bitcoins vision is about a decentralized currency not run by corporations who intend to screw users over.
the funny thing is that those denouncing satoshi's vision are doing so not because of logic of satoshi being wrong overall.. but because they are on the corporate/capitalist bandwagon and want to profit from other peoples misery

eventhis very topic, thinking bitcoin needs to be like Visa.. instead of just decentralized cash(cheques to be more precise), shows that people want to move away from the decentralized zero control premiss

I DO NOT TRADE OR ACT AS ESCROW ON THIS FORUM EVER.
Please do your own research & respect what is written here as both opinion & information gleaned from experience. many people replying with insults but no on-topic content substance, automatically are 'facepalmed' and yawned at
David Rabahy
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 709
Merit: 500



View Profile
March 09, 2016, 04:04:11 PM
 #178

A transaction will have one or more sigops (signature operations).  Let's denote these as S1, S2, ..., Sn.  Apparently verifying these involves considering pairs, e.g. (S1, S2), (S1, S3), ..., (S1, Sn), (S2, S3), (S2, S4), ..., (S2, Sn), ..., (Sn-1, Sn).  This leads to quadratic growth of the compute time.  To avoid running behind the live stream of blocks, transactions are limited in size; they cannot span multiple blocks.  Furthermore, the block size is limited; currently to 1MB.

The least compute intensive block is composed of a single transaction with only one sigop.  The most computational intensive block is also composed of a single transaction but with as many sigops as will fit.  A block with two or more transactions will be less computational intense.  A block full of many transactions, each with just a single sigop, is minimal in terms of compute power required to verify it.

Let's denote transactions, Tk, where k is the number of sigops.  A block is composed of a set of transactions, (Tk1, Tk2, ..., Tkn).  The verification time is then approximated by K12+K22+...+Kn2.

To scale we must either;

1) have fast enough hardware
2) improve the algorithm, i.e. verify without pairing
3) verify in the background (although the verification has to happen sometime)
4) constrain the sum of sigops/transaction in a block

Can someone please provide an example of transaction that requires two or more sigops?
adamstgBit
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1904
Merit: 1019


Trusted Bitcoiner


View Profile WWW
March 09, 2016, 04:18:03 PM
 #179

A transaction will have one or more sigops (signature operations).  Let's denote these as S1, S2, ..., Sn.  Apparently verifying these involves considering pairs, e.g. (S1, S2), (S1, S3), ..., (S1, Sn), (S2, S3), (S2, S4), ..., (S2, Sn), ..., (Sn-1, Sn).  This leads to quadratic growth of the compute time.  To avoid running behind the live stream of blocks, transactions are limited in size; they cannot span multiple blocks.  Furthermore, the block size is limited; currently to 1MB.

The least compute intensive block is composed of a single transaction with only one sigop.  The most computational intensive block is also composed of a single transaction but with as many sigops as will fit.  A block with two or more transactions will be less computational intense.  A block full of many transactions, each with just a single sigop, is minimal in terms of compute power required to verify it.

Let's denote transactions, Tk, where k is the number of sigops.  A block is composed of a set of transactions, (Tk1, Tk2, ..., Tkn).  The verification time is then approximated by K12+K22+...+Kn2.

To scale we must either;

1) have fast enough hardware
2) improve the algorithm, i.e. verify without pairing
3) verify in the background (although the verification has to happen sometime)
4) constrain the sum of sigops/transaction in a block

Can someone please provide an example of transaction that requires two or more sigops?

this is a none issue
#1 #2 is has already been done

it's not like these crazy computational intensive TX are legit, you only get into trouble if you try to allow this crazy spam like TX with thousands of inputs.

miners are allowed to orphen a block for ANY reason. I think it's perfectly valid to not allow spam TX designed to slow down validation time of the block.

adamstgBit
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1904
Merit: 1019


Trusted Bitcoiner


View Profile WWW
March 09, 2016, 04:32:04 PM
 #180

everything you hear about why we shouldn't increase blocksize is a bullshit excuse to delay the inevitable. the lighting network will require bigger blocks too....
we simply have to do this, the only thing to discuss now is when, thats all.
core says 1 year because they want the fee market to grow, and get poeple to come to there second layer solution sooner rather than later.
they would have us keep bitcoin first layer always 1 step behind, so that the second layer solution is attractive from day 1.

if you can't see this reality then you haven't done enough digging.

Lauda
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2674
Merit: 2746


Terminated.


View Profile WWW
March 09, 2016, 04:51:00 PM
Last edit: March 09, 2016, 05:43:33 PM by Lauda
 #181

everything you hear about why we shouldn't increase blocksize is a bullshit excuse to delay the inevitable.
Nope. There are true and valid concerns in regards to it. You can't just play around with numbers as you wish.

the lighting network will require bigger blocks too....
According to the wallpaper it will be able to accommodate 30 million users at a 1 MB block size limit.