69,000 (69K) Unconfirmed Transactions! ....WTF...???

[Carlton Banks]

I did not say that it is equal to a 51% attack in all ways. Whilst what you say is true, a 51% fork is also an attack. Anything which causes a blockchain split, especially one that is this severe, should be seen and treated as an attack.

I really don't see why a hard fork is an attack.  It is a divergence in the protocols.  With a hard fork, untenable tensions of disagreement, which don't allow a consensus of second order (that is, a *protocol consensus*, not a block chain consensus within a given protocol), are relieved.  

I think you should reconsider your stance on this. This is a really vague definition of consensus. On the other side, I've seen people who claim that even if 99% of the network agrees on new rules in a hard fork, that it would still be an altcoin (which is an extremist and absurd stance).

This is how these trolls operate: heavily heavily repeating their re-definition of words like consensus


LEARN CONSENSUS, Lauda (i.e. the troll wants you to learn what consensus does not mean: their preferred definition of the word)

Roger Ver probably has as much Bitcoin as several thousands other users.

What's the source of that information? Roger talking, and I think we all know now the dubious nature of Roger talking

[1714114894]

1714114894

[1714114894]

1714114894

[1714114894]

1714114894

[1714114894]

1714114894

[1714114894]

1714114894

[dinofelis]

I did not say that it is equal to a 51% attack in all ways. Whilst what you say is true, a 51% fork is also an attack. Anything which causes a blockchain split, especially one that is this severe, should be seen and treated as an attack.

I really don't see why a hard fork is an attack.  It is a divergence in the protocols.  With a hard fork, untenable tensions of disagreement, which don't allow a consensus of second order (that is, a *protocol consensus*, not a block chain consensus within a given protocol), are relieved.  

I think you should reconsider your stance on this. This is a really vague definition of consensus. On the other side, I've seen people who claim that even if 99% of the network agrees on new rules in a hard fork, that it would still be an altcoin (which is an extremist and absurd stance).

Consensus is not a pre-defined term, it is a dynamically emerging phenomenon.   Like the term "melting".  Melting happens, when a physical solid, which gets its solidity from the molecular interactions that "keep molecules on average in place", transitions to a liquid, where the same forces are not able any more to keep them in place, but can still keep them "at short range".  Evaporation occurs when these forces are even not able any more to keep them in place.

As such, "melting" and "evaporating" are emergent properties of the fact that there are inter-molecular forces, and that there are thermal movements.  There's no point in defining abstractly what you would consider "melting".  It is a phenomenon that occurs, and you give it a name.  The dynamical model of the physics behind it EXPLAINS the phenomenon.  But inventing a name for another phenomenon that doesn't happen, is meaningless.

As such, "consensus" is the name one gives to the fact that in a trustless, distributed system, the initially set out rules remain valid, and the recorded history is not modified.  But up to what point ?   What is the *dynamical model* that is supposed to EXPLAIN this consensus phenomenon ?

The dynamical model is that there are sufficiently diverse and numerous actors in the system, each of which *would like to modify the rules to suit his wishes and advantages* that they cannot come to an agreement over WHAT changes should apply.  As such, the ONLY thing they can agree on, is to keep the rules as they are, to keep the history as it is.  This was the original motivation to even launch a trustless, distributed system that would nevertheless impose the respect of its rules (which is necessary to induce a monetary belief system in the first place: if the rules can change every day, nobody is going to believe in the monetary value).  So "consensus" is the name of this phenomenon.  It cannot be defined more accurately than the knowledge we have of the phenomenon, and there's no use in defining it otherwise, because any *other* definition is naming a non-existent phenomenon.  Like you better define "melting" as what really happens when a solid melts.

Given the initial model of consensus, which seems to describe quite accurately what it has done until now, I *presume* that it will act similarly on the block size.  When I look at what the dynamical model we have of the consensus phenomenon TELLS US, and what we *observe*, then both are marvellously in agreement up to now: several different actors who want to modify the rules, cannot find agreement, because it goes against their own advantages, and so the old rules remain in place.   This is an almost perfect illustration of the expected dynamics of the consensus phenomenon that keeps old rules in place.

The market cap splits according to how "people vote with their money".  No-one actually loses money, because you are double coin holder at the fork.   And now, two coins exist, with different protocols, each according to their communities.  

Depends on how you view the importance of the economy. Do you prioritize, i.e. value more a large capitalist or do you value a higher quantity of economically involved people? For example, Roger Ver probably has as much Bitcoin as several thousands other users.

There is no "preference" to have.  The dynamics is what it will be.  Your question is like "do you prefer a high or a low oil market price ?".  There will be an oil market price, emerging from offer and demand.  There's not to be decided "what it should be".

[Carlton Banks]

See what I mean?

If you can't win the argument, just start playing with the definitions of words that are important to your opponent's argument, lol



Consensus = everyone disagreeing, lol

[dinofelis]

See what I mean?

If you can't win the argument, just start playing with the definitions of words that are important to your opponent's argument, lol



Consensus = everyone disagreeing, lol

Now calm down, and read what I wrote.  If you understand bitcoin, you will agree.  
Yes, consensus is everyone disagreeing on changing the rules in a given direction.  That's what maintains the rule set in a trustless environment.  If you didn't understand that essential given, you do not understand distributed trustless environments and hence, you do not understand bitcoin.

It is an emerging phenomenon in these systems. 

[AngryDwarf]

Consensual agreement for change = consensus for change to be implemented.
No consensual agreement for change = consensus for current protocol to remain as is.

[Carlton Banks]

So, change = stasis, and stasis = change

Riiiiiiiiiiiiight

[jacafbiz]

I don't think why some people still hold the opinion of Roger Ver, I know he has done alot for Bitcoin but the issue of scaling Bitcoin he has got it all wrong. For me when it come s to technical issue I will go with Core, a know devil is better than unknow angel

[AngryDwarf]

So, change = stasis, and stasis = change

Riiiiiiiiiiiiight

I think you misunderstand my equations, maybe to rewrite using some of your own definitions

change agreement = change
no change agreement = stasis

[Lauda]

Consensus is not a pre-defined term, it is a dynamically emerging phenomenon.   Like the term "melting".  Melting happens, when a physical solid, which gets its solidity from the molecular interactions that "keep molecules on average in place", transitions to a liquid, where the same forces are not able any more to keep them in place, but can still keep them "at short range".  Evaporation occurs when these forces are even not able any more to keep them in place.

As such, "consensus" is the name one gives to the fact that in a trustless, distributed system, the initially set out rules remain valid, and the recorded history is not modified.  But up to what point ?   What is the *dynamical model* that is supposed to EXPLAIN this consensus phenomenon ?

Whilst I do agree that consensus is not explicitly defined, as Bitcoin works better in practice than it does in theory [1], I disagree with the remainder of your statements. Redefining consensus on the go is exactly what the BU folk are doing, just in a slightly different fashion. Who are you to re-define consensus? Nobody.

There is no "preference" to have.  The dynamics is what it will be.  Your question is like "do you prefer a high or a low oil market price ?".  There will be an oil market price, emerging from offer and demand.  There's not to be decided "what it should be".

Your analogy is completely flawed. You talk about the market, you talk about the economy, you talk about consensus, therefore my question is valid. If you can't answer it, then you need to start asking yourself some questions.

This is how these trolls operate: heavily heavily repeating their re-definition of words like consensus

Weird, ain't it? Nobody, especially not them, can redefine consensus.

LEARN CONSENSUS, Lauda (i.e. the troll wants you to learn what consensus does not mean: their preferred definition of the word)

When Franky tells me "please learn consensus", whilst he has a very flawed understanding of Bitcoin..

What's the source of that information? Roger talking, and I think we all know now the dubious nature of Roger talking

How much Bitcoin exactly he has is always a matter of speculation. Being one of the early Bitcoin investors, having a lot of people working for him and flying around the world spreading the 'word of BTU', pretty much confirms my statement.
[1] - https://www.coursera.org/learn/cryptocurrency/lecture/At1IC/distributed-consensus

[dinofelis]

Whilst I do agree that consensus is not explicitly defined, as Bitcoin works better in practice than it does in theory [1], I disagree with the remainder of your statements. Redefining consensus on the go is exactly what the BU folk are doing, just in a slightly different fashion. Who are you to re-define consensus? Nobody.

As I said, defining a non-existent phenomenon has no meaning.  I'm just using a word to designate a phenomenon.  Like melting.  Melting is an observable phenomenon ; if you use the word "melting" for some theoretical construct that doesn't happen, that's meaningless, and even if I'm the only guy using the word to indicate the actually happening phenomenon, I'm the only one using it correctly. 

But I'm not even disagreeing with what others say.  Of course, consensus is "that what most of the participants agree upon".  Sure.  But that is not what is interesting about distributed trustless consensus.  What is interesting about it, is that there is a dynamical description that explains the immutability aspect of this "agreement", namely the fact that many diverse agents want to impose changes that suit them, and are unable to come to an agreement over that, so the old rules prevail.

It is amazing that people are so stubborn that they are discussing over how this is wrong, while they have exactly the example under their noses.  This is like Galilei showing the 4 moons of Jupiter with his telescope to the representatives of the church, who refused to see them.

Where does immutability come from in distributed trustless environments, and how is this kind of consensus different from the "computer science consensus" ?  Contrary to "computer science consensus", there is no "neutrality" in the nodes.  In the computer science consensus, there are "honest nodes" trying to establish a pre-defined protocol, and there may be some faulty or malicious.  But most are presumed to "try to be honest".  This is different in a trustless environment of course.  All nodes try to scam all others.  If I use bitcoin, and I pay someone, of course, I would like to reverse my transaction after a while.  Once I get the goods or services I paid for, of course I would like to "erase" my transaction from the block chain, to be able to double spend.  All bitcoin participants are supposed to want to double spend, to modify transaction history, to make fake transactions in their name, and to get fake mined bitcoins.   Nobody is to be trusted, and nobody is "trying to be honest".  Everyone tries to scam everyone.  That's the basic idea of a trustless environment.

However, in as much as I try to erase my transaction to you from the block chain, you want to keep it of course.   I could collude with some others to redo the block containing my transactions, but I won't find enough people agreeing on that.  I would like to make a false block giving me the coinbase reward, but others will not agree.  So, no matter how much I would like to scam others, I won't be able to, because what I want to do in my advantage, is not in the advantage of others, and we can't agree over that.  So we end up agreeing over the "honest" rules.  Not because I'm an honest node (I'm not), not because you are a honest node (you're not), but because there's nothing else we can agree upon.  You do not agree upon my scam, I do not agree upon your scam, and so we have no choice but to agree upon the honest blocks.  That's why there is never agreement on redoing the block chain, and why it becomes immutable.  I cannot make miners agree upon my scam.  You cannot make miners agree upon your scam.  So we end up, even if we both want to, not to scam one another.  But nobody is trying to be honest.  We are CONSTRAINED to be "honest" (that is, follow the original rules).   We are FORCED to agree upon the honest history.  That forced agreement is the emerging consensus, and is immutability.
This differs from the "computer science" consensus where honest nodes have no "gains" and do not try to scam other nodes, but just try to find the "right" data.  In computer science, one has "distributed consensus".  But not trustless (that is, everyone has an advantage in trying to be dishonest, but there is no collusion possible over this).

There is no "preference" to have.  The dynamics is what it will be.  Your question is like "do you prefer a high or a low oil market price ?".  There will be an oil market price, emerging from offer and demand.  There's not to be decided "what it should be".

Your analogy is completely flawed. You talk about the market, you talk about the economy, you talk about consensus, therefore my question is valid. If you can't answer it, then you need to start asking yourself some questions.

My analogy is not so bad.  In a market too, everyone tries to get his advantage.  If you sell apples, I would like to buy them for an extremely low price.  You would like to sell them for an extremely high price.  None of us can obtain what one wants (and scam the other one).  So we agree upon a price none of us actually wanted, but is the "honest" one.

We see that the immutability doesn't work, when the parameter is entirely neutral, and nobody can use that parameter to obtain an advantage over someone else.   This is why the normal word "consensus" (common agreement) is applicable for all those changes that do not imply any advantage of one node over another one.  And this is why early modifications to the protocol were possible, as they were not subject to the "I try to scam you, you try to scam me, but the only thing we can agree upon, is to remain, against our wishes, honest, that is, follow the established rules".

This is why immutability didn't stop people change the block size when this didn't affect anyone.  And why NOW, as it is affecting people and giving them advantage or disadvantage (when it becomes an economic parameter) it becomes immutable.

I'm writing this as someone who studies the dynamical phenomena of this kind of system.  Not as someone who has any interest in it.  I find the phenomena happening in bitcoin, as dynamical phenomena of systems, pretty fascinating, and I'm just sharing my observations with you, especially in these times when those dynamical phenomena have "unexpected" (to those who don't understand them) effects.

I'm telling you, the block size will not change, and segwit will not happen if my understanding of the immutability dynamics is correct.  The only thing I see eventually happening (but far from sure), is a hard fork with two coins emerging when the tension is too large.

And honestly, the facts are in my favour.  If it could have been changed, it would have been, since a long time.
Now, you go and take your own definitions of consensus and whatever, and see if your theoretical model fits as well the observations as mine.   You take your Ptolemaic astronomy, and see if it fits the observations. 

My description, as of this day, does: no economic parameter can be changed.

[dinofelis]

I think you misunderstand my equations, maybe to rewrite using some of your own definitions

change agreement = change
no change agreement = stasis

The idea is indeed, that the only agreement over change that can happen, is an agreement over something technical that doesn't involve any gains or losses for anyone.  From the moment that some gain, and others lose (which is always, by definition, the case if one changes an economic parameter), there cannot be agreement, and hence no consensus.

This is why I say that this lack of consensus over those things that make some gain, and others lose, implies their immutability.

And as the block size is now an economic parameter determining the fee market, I consider that immutability is at work when one sees the never-ending quarrels over different ways of modifying it, and why I'm seriously convinced that it will not change, OR FORK.

[Lauda]

As I said, defining a non-existent phenomenon has no meaning. 

Consensus doesn't exist?

But I'm not even disagreeing with what others say.  Of course, consensus is "that what most of the participants agree upon".  Sure.  But that is not what is interesting about distributed trustless consensus.  What is interesting about it, is that there is a dynamical description that explains the immutability aspect of this "agreement", namely the fact that many diverse agents want to impose changes that suit them, and are unable to come to an agreement over that, so the old rules prevail.

I don't find it specially interesting and find it rather 'intuitive'.

My analogy is not so bad.  In a market too, everyone tries to get his advantage. 

You didn't answer my question. It was a question directed personally at you.
Also, your posts are unecessarily large and contain no useful information. Most of it is over-extended noise. You need to improve your 'get-to-the-point' skills.

[dinofelis]

As I said, defining a non-existent phenomenon has no meaning.

Consensus doesn't exist?

In order for the concept of consensus to exist meaningfully, it must correspond to some phenomenon.  Like the concept of melting exists meaningfully by it indicating the phenomenon of a solid becoming liquid.  Next, one tries to *model* whatever goes on that makes the phenomenon happen.  One can be wrong ; only observation and logic are the judge.  But inventing names for thing that are not corresponding to a real phenomenon, is a useless activity.

So, defining "consensus" abstractly as what it *should* be ("people agreeing over what is best for bitcoin" or whatever) is a ridiculous exercise, because it puts an abstract idea that may, or may not be true, but doesn't necessarily correspond to a phenomenon that really occurs.

I define "consensus" as the observable phenomenon of the stability (or modification) of the common rules people adhere to within a crypto currency like bitcoin.  It is a fascinating observation that many people are using the same rules to make bitcoin what it is.  Especially that it has to do with individual advantages, one could think that the rules change every day, and that several people use several different rules, all in their advantage.... to make a big mess that doesn't work.  But no, all bitcoin actors obey the same rules, and those rules stay rather constant over time.  That *phenomenon* that is *really observable* is what I name "consensus".
One aspect is that all actors in the system respect the same rules (consensus), and the other aspect is that these rules don't seem to change (much) over time ("immutability").

Next, we try to model the dynamics of this phenomenon.  I sketched this before.  People come to a common set of rules that doesn't change, *because they cannot change it* and they are *obliged to agree*.  Not because they all find these rules in their greatest advantage.  On the contrary.  If I could change the block chain so that my expenses are reversed, that would be better for me.  If I could obtain more coinbase coins, that would be better for me.  So the rules, as I *have to agree on*, are not in my advantage at first sight. Changing these rules would be beneficial to me.  But I can't.  I have to stick to them.  I also will try to avoid that you turn back your transaction to me.  So I will not agree on YOU changing the rules either.  So you have to stick to them.  As such, we get a situation where any change that is in the advantage of one or the other, is disagreed over by sufficiently others, so that it can't happen.  

This dynamical model explains the immutability by consensus.  We all try to scam one another, and we all disagree to be scammed, which means that no modification of whatever brings you or me an advantage, can happen.  The only consensus is status quo: immutability.

As to "who am I" ?  I'm like Galileo showing the cardinals the moons of jupiter.  I'm doing science.

[AliceWonderMiscreations]

Unconfirmed pool down to about 20k now.

[Lauda]

Unconfirmed pool down to about 20k now.

It really depends on where you're looking it, e.g. Blockchain.info has around ~11k (similar to my node), while 21 has more than that. I guess a fair deal of the spam transaction (e.g. Komodo federation spam) got finally 'forgotten/dropped' by the network.

[sanas]

With the popularity of bitcoin, the pool of unconfirmed transactions will grow. This will someday be a big problem when transactions will not be confirmed for weeks. A large commission will become a negative factor. We have to solve the problem of scalability very quickly.

[AliceWonderMiscreations]

With the popularity of bitcoin, the pool of unconfirmed transactions will grow. This will someday be a big problem when transactions will not be confirmed for weeks. A large commission will become a negative factor. We have to solve the problem of scalability very quickly.

Well, no, we don't. I would very much like us to solve it, but some do not want BitCoin to be a form of cash.

[dinofelis]

Well, no, we don't. I would very much like us to solve it, but some do not want BitCoin to be a form of cash.

Those that "do not want this" are those that lined out the current protocol, in other words, the whole bitcoin community.  By putting a hard limit on block size and by programming block reward halvings, they made it into a speculative asset with a limited number of possible transactions.  The idea that one "would adapt it when necessary" is a bit naive if at the same time, one is firmly convinced that the block reward halving is firmly unmodifiable.

[AngryDwarf]

Well, no, we don't. I would very much like us to solve it, but some do not want BitCoin to be a form of cash.

Those that "do not want this" are those that lined out the current protocol, in other words, the whole bitcoin community.  By putting a hard limit on block size and by programming block reward halvings, they made it into a speculative asset with a limited number of possible transactions.  The idea that one "would adapt it when necessary" is a bit naive if at the same time, one is firmly convinced that the block reward halving is firmly unmodifiable.

Remember the hard limit on block size was put in as an anti-spam measure. Now we are stuck with it as it is difficult to get consensus to remove it. It could very well have been naivety as it was put in by a human.

[freedomno1]

With the popularity of bitcoin, the pool of unconfirmed transactions will grow. This will someday be a big problem when transactions will not be confirmed for weeks. A large commission will become a negative factor. We have to solve the problem of scalability very quickly.

It depends on if a Bitcoin service uses dynamic fees or not for a transaction that are based on the mempool size.
If a fee is charged then the speed of confirmation will take a long time if the pool of unresolved tx's grows.
Unless they manually boost your fee after the fact or if they have a service that you can complain to do that.
Either way yes it goes back to scalability and memory limits until that issue is resolved we will see this become an increasingly common occurrence.