My transaction must get through (block size debate.. AGAIN)

[Yogafan00000]

Spamming the network doesnt make any sense (imo).
The costs are too high.. (even if you self mine the block).. You cant mine every block..
Spamming Blockchaintechnology is never efficient.

yet here we are trying to explain blockchain spam.

Rationally, you have to start questioning your assumptions.

Assumption 1: Spamming is actually occurring.
Assumption 2: Spamming is irrational, spammers can only lose money (in some way).

These 2 assumptions can only both be true if and only if the spammer is acting irrationally.

So either
A: 1 is wrong and there is no spamming and its all legitimate.  It just looks like spam.
B: 2 is wrong, and somehow spamming is profiting the spammer (in some way).
C: The spammer is acting irrationally to the detriment of everyone, including himself.

[1714489285]

1714489285

[1714489285]

1714489285

[1714489285]

1714489285

[1714489285]

1714489285

[1714489285]

1714489285

[Wind_FURY]

That is a compelling argument. So what are you saying? This constant barrage of spamming in the network is being caused by someone who has a profit motive instead of a political motive?

The spammer does spend a lot in fees by slowing down the transaction confirmations. Maybe it could be true but who would be doing this? He or they are risking so much here.

Just a thought, I may be awfully wrong, but still:
What if there is a spam, made by some bigger miners? Meaning OK, they will pay quite some money for the tx fees, but a big chunk of that money returns to them when they find the blocks.
And they get quite some extra from the other users of the network, I don't know if it's some profit or just cover the expenses (since there are other miners too, which cash in those fees).
And then they can argue about block size or other such politics....
As I said, it's just a thought, please don't throw stones on me...

If there was a profit angle found by the miners by spamming the network then they will surely take advantage of this. Not do they only get profit but they also get the leverage on the Core developers because they could threaten to to flood the mem pool anytime. We need another layer on top of Bitcoin for transactions off the chain. That might neutralize that leverage.

[Quickseller]

Nearly everyone that can be considered a Bitcoin expert (i.e. wallet developers, developers of full node software, etc.) has given statements regarding their position with Segwit, Classic, and BU[...] through their support of Segwit functionality in their software. You will find that the majority of these people are in favor of segwit.

I think you are misrepresenting the position of wallet (softare) devs, (and the position of exchanges/businesses). The reason that wallet software is supporting segwit is because the devs believe there is a decent chance it will be implemented, and if segwit is not supported, then users of their wallet software will be unable to validate segwit transactions (what could be the majority of transactions). The same is true regarding exchanges, if an exchange is not ready to implement segwit, then once segwit is activated, they will have no way to validate they have actually received deposits, which is just asking for a disaster.

Although not directly related to SegWit, this reddit post is a better indication of the experts who are running major Bitcoin related businesses' opinions. Provided that you trust that the author of that post is not lying (I am unsure of his ability to be trusted one way or another, although I have not seen any contradictions to what he has said), then the majority of Bitcoin related businesses are neutral to the issue, and do not support one side or another.

I would also point out that major businesses were threatened with bans on r/bitcoin after they publicly showed support for XT (and baseless ad-hominem attacks were thrown at the same businesses after they showed support for XT), so there is a legitimate business reason to withhold public opposition to SegWit (and public support for BU) if that is the business' actual position. There is no such business reason to withhold public support for SegWit when the business' actual position is that they support SegWit.

[dfd1]

Isn't litecoin was made exactly for this situation? To process microtransactions when bitcoin can't? Increasing in block size still won't resolve problem, even with bigger block the network  will be full of unconfirmed transactions  in a week. Too many people  use bitcoin today, single blockchain can't handle this.

[inBitweTrust]

Although not directly related to SegWit, this reddit post is a better indication of the experts who are running major Bitcoin related businesses' opinions. Provided that you trust that the author of that post is not lying (I am unsure of his ability to be trusted one way or another, although I have not seen any contradictions to what he has said), then the majority of Bitcoin related businesses are neutral to the issue, and do not support one side or another.

OKCoin, BitFinex,Gemini ,BitFinex,BTCC, Kraken, Bitstamp, Bittrex, Coinfloor , Btc-e , QuadrigaCX, itBit , bitMex= We don't have an opinion because we either don't want to upset a subset of our users and/or we don't understand the proposals enough


Coinbase , Coinfloor= segwit

Btcpop = BU

Owners of BTCC and BitFinex have expressed segwit support elsewhere.

Exchanges make money of tx fees and will benefit greatly in the short term from Bitcoin splitting in 2 and a trading war begins so aren't the best businesses to ask regarding their opinion.  The experts achow101 refers to anyways are devs not exchange owners anyways.

I would also point out that major businesses were threatened with bans on r/bitcoin after they publicly showed support for XT (and baseless ad-hominem attacks were thrown at the same businesses after they showed support for XT), so there is a legitimate business reason to withhold public opposition to SegWit (and public support for BU) if that is the business' actual position. There is no such business reason to withhold public support for SegWit when the business' actual position is that they support SegWit.

This isn't true. Supporters of segwit are viciously attacked all the time.

[inBitweTrust]

Well the fact is Danny, the "solution" you're oh-so subtly selling is little thin on game theory.

User selectable blocksize just moves the shouting match directly to the consensus rules, and of course, who shouts loudest wins. No amount of goodwill platitudes can wish that away, so you're going to have to admit you're selling yet another 2nd hand used-Bitcoin eventually

And that's without forgetting that even without the BU blocksize getting set to "datacenter" by bad actors, a majority of BU users aren't going to even set the mysterious "block limit" setting, much less the "Depth" setting, and so BU developers de facto choose it's blocksize anyway, as they choose the default

Well said, and miners can both sybil attack the blocksize vote while stuffing blocks with spam (for free as they collect the tx fees) to mislead the community into believing more capacity is needed, rinse and repeat.

[DannyHamilton]

- snip -
stuffing blocks with spam (for free as they collect the tx fees)
- snip -

If you don't understand how bitcoin works, then your opinion on the matter isn't very important.

If miners (or pools) refuse to include fee paying transactions and replace those transactions in the block with their own transactions it is not free.  It costs the miner (or pool) in at least 3 ways.

1. They still have to run the equipment to perform the mining. This has a cost associated with it, and they need enough revenue to keep it going.  The more revenue their competitors get, the more hashing power their competitors can afford which increases the profitability of their competitors and increases the mining difficulty.  Eventually the attacking miner (or pool) is operating at a loss.  When they lose enough money, they can't afford to continue to run and have to shut down.

2.  They lose out on the transaction fees from the transactions they refused to include.  This is lost revenue, and other miners or pools that choose to include those transactions will be able to afford more hash power, thereby making the attacking pool less relevant.

3. If their block gets orphaned, then all those "spam" transactions can be confirmed by some other miner or pool.  As such, they can pay a very hefty fee for playing such a game and taking such a risk.  Eventually this additional revenue for the "honest" miners and pools will allow them to afford more hash power, thereby making the attacking pool less relevant.

The only way miners could be successful in such an "attack" would be if there was a cartel of miners (or pools) that controlled significantly more than 50% of the hash power.  They could then all agree to exclude low-fee paying transactions and avoid mining each other's "spam".  If this occurs, then bitcoin is already a failure.  It won't matter if we have SegWit, Unlimited, Classix, XT, or something else.  Satoshi explained in the whitepaper, and it is clear to everyone that understands how bitcoin works that if an entity controls significantly more than 50% of the hashpower, they can take full control over which transactions get confirmed and which don't.  They can also roll back blocks several deep if they like.

[inBitweTrust]

Thank you for your notes on the matter.

1. They still have to run the equipment to perform the mining. This has a cost associated with it, and they need enough revenue to keep it going.  The more revenue their competitors get, the more hashing power their competitors can afford which increases the profitability of their competitors and increases the mining difficulty.  Eventually the attacking miner (or pool) is operating at a loss.  When they lose enough money, they can't afford to continue to run and have to shut down.

Mining is already extremely centralized and there is evidence that one company could already control over 50% of the hashrate directly or indirectly. There are profits to be made in raising the blocksize from this principle miner or a cartel of miners who wish to shutdown competitors elsewhere while they can further centralize mining in a single location like this where they aren't concerned as much with orphaning blocks due to increased latency:

http://www.datacenterdynamics.com/content-tracks/power-cooling/bitmain-to-build-a-large-cryptocurrency-mine-in-xinjiang/97265.fullarticle

2.  They lose out on the transaction fees from the transactions they refused to include.  This is lost revenue, and other miners or pools that choose to include those transactions will be able to afford more hash power, thereby making the attacking pool less relevant.

This miner, Cough...Bitmain... cough, would still be extremely profitable because most of the block would be filled with others tx fees and they would simply top it off occasionally when they wanted increase the blocksize. THis would actually likely increase their profit margins as the txs sitting in the mempool would than compete in a fee market which would drive up tx fees.

3. If their block gets orphaned, then all those "spam" transactions can be confirmed by some other miner or pool.  As such, they can pay a very hefty fee for playing such a game and taking such a risk.  Eventually this additional revenue for the "honest" miners and pools will allow them to afford more hash power, thereby making the attacking pool less relevant.

I would disagree , they would be encouraged to continue down the path we are already witnessing- centralizing mining further to reduce orphan risk by placing most mining under one roof - https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/bitmain-reveals-plans-for-major-bitcoin-mining-data-center-in-northwestern-china-1478797051/  , collecting rent fees from other miners who wish to be hosted in this facility, pretending that mining is becoming more decentralized by creating contracts with "other" companies , advocating for blocksize increases to onboard more txs and collect more fees while preventing competition from remaining profitable.

The only way miners could be successful in such an "attack" would be if there was a cartel of miners (or pools) that controlled significantly more than 50% of the hash power.  They could then all agree to exclude low-fee paying transactions and avoid mining each other's "spam".  If this occurs, then bitcoin is already a failure.

Miners order txs and users validate them. Miners work for economic users. The current Miners are ultimately powerless to the will of these users and bitcoin will carry on with or without them.

[Quickseller]

Although not directly related to SegWit, this reddit post is a better indication of the experts who are running major Bitcoin related businesses' opinions. Provided that you trust that the author of that post is not lying (I am unsure of his ability to be trusted one way or another, although I have not seen any contradictions to what he has said), then the majority of Bitcoin related businesses are neutral to the issue, and do not support one side or another.

OKCoin, BitFinex,Gemini ,BitFinex,BTCC, Kraken, Bitstamp, Bittrex, Coinfloor , Btc-e , QuadrigaCX, itBit , bitMex= We don't have an opinion because [...]

You are misrepresenting their statements. Their statements are that they are neutral on the matter. Period.

Coinbase , Coinfloor= segwit

Btcpop = BU

If you seriously believe that coinbase actually supports SegWit, then you are naive. Coinbase was attacked for months (if not longer) with baseless accusations (such as being hacked, insolvent, lying about reserves, ect.) on r/bitcoin after publicly supporting larger blocksize proposals, which promptly stopped when coinbase stopped being vocal about larger block proposals. 

Owners of BTCC and BitFinex have expressed segwit support elsewhere.

This is another misrepresentation. Executives of BTCC and Bitfinex are supporters of small blocks, who also are shareholders of their respective companies, however the companies themselves have taken the above stances.

I am a shareholder of an exchange, and I support large blocks, however it would be a misrepresentation to say that the owner of said exchange supports large blocks.

Exchanges make money of tx fees and will benefit greatly in the short term from Bitcoin splitting in 2 and a trading war begins so aren't the best businesses to ask regarding their opinion.  The experts achow101 refers to anyways are devs not exchange owners anyways.

Again, you are wrong here. Exhanges pay a lot of money in tx fees as they generally do not charge their customers to deposit or withdraw, however they are incurring costs to receive many deposits (that need to be moved to cold and/or 'warm' storage), and to process all withdrawals.

If you do not think that exchanges employ any kind of experts then you are sorely mistaken. The experts employed by the exchanges may not be public figures, nor do they command the kind of salary that blockstream pays, however without their services, exchanges would be exploited on a regular basis.

I would also point out that major businesses were threatened with bans on r/bitcoin after they publicly showed support for XT (and baseless ad-hominem attacks were thrown at the same businesses after they showed support for XT), so there is a legitimate business reason to withhold public opposition to SegWit (and public support for BU) if that is the business' actual position. There is no such business reason to withhold public support for SegWit when the business' actual position is that they support SegWit.

This isn't true. Supporters of segwit are viciously attacked all the time.

This does not match what I have observed. Can you point to attacks against Coinbase and BTCC, both of which you cite to be a SegWit supporter, on r/bitcoin?

[inBitweTrust]

]If you seriously believe that coinbase actually supports SegWit, then you are naive. Coinbase was attacked for months (if not longer) with baseless accusations (such as being hacked, insolvent, lying about reserves, ect.) on r/bitcoin after publicly supporting larger blocksize proposals, which promptly stopped when coinbase stopped being vocal about larger block proposals.  

So you are suggesting Brian is lying because he was peer pressured or bullied instead of realizing that segwit is the best step forward after more reflection? I don't know his mind and won't entertain conspiracy theories , but him and others in his company like Charlie Lee have come out in support of segwit.

If you do not think that exchanges employ any kind of experts then you are sorely mistaken. The experts employed by the exchanges may not be public figures, nor do they command the kind of salary that blockstream pays, however without their services, exchanges would be exploited on a regular basis.

Please cite their experts direct opinion than.

This does not match what I have observed. Can you point to attacks against Coinbase and BTCC, both of which you cite to be a SegWit supporter, on r/bitcoin?

Are you kidding me ? Samson Mow wasn't continually attacked for segwit support? Yes, attacking the former CTO is indeed an attack on the company itself.