Bitcoin Forum
February 24, 2020, 11:16:54 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.19.0.1 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: BUgcoin strikes back  (Read 6453 times)
-ck
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3052
Merit: 1221


Ruu \o/


View Profile WWW
March 25, 2017, 09:51:40 PM
 #121

Advancements in either p2pool software or something similar would go a long way in starting to alleviate the problems associated with mining centralization. Unfortunately, there hasn't been enough incentive to advance these things. I think instead of removing mining from the reference client, it should have adopted and improved upon the p2pool software.
It's not from lack of incentive. Many of us have spent a lot of man hours with discussion, theories and code in mining that the non-mining world probably is not remotely aware of and quick to dismiss as "greedy miners." The idea behind p2pool was sound, but the reality was that the design is fundamentally flawed in a way that cannot be fixed, making it worse to mine on than a regular pool. P2pool is ultimately simply a merged mined blockchain on top of the bitcoin blockchain - mining on the merged chain means you're simply solo mining on a chain with slightly lower difficulty, yet still far too high a diff. After extensive discussion and investigation it is clear that these flaws cannot be fixed to make it even as attractive as regular pooled mining, let alone better. The design of the current bitcoin proof of work itself means that will always be the case. Without a massive change to the blockchain and proof of work design, pooled mining will always be possible, and the "p2pool" design will never be as good. A distributed peer to peer proof of work design that intrinsically does not lend itself to pooled mining without even changing from sha256d allowing existing hardware to continue mining is indeed a solution but unfortunately p2pool is not it and cannot be made to be it.

Developer/maintainer for cgminer and ckpool/ckproxy.
ZERO FEE Pooled mining at ckpool.org, 1% Fee Solo mining at solo.ckpool.org
-ck
1582586214
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1582586214

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1582586214
Reply with quote  #2

1582586214
Report to moderator
100% First Deposit Bonus Instant Withdrawals Best Odds 10+ Sports Since 2014 No KYC Asked Play Now
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1582586214
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1582586214

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1582586214
Reply with quote  #2

1582586214
Report to moderator
1582586214
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1582586214

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1582586214
Reply with quote  #2

1582586214
Report to moderator
1582586214
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1582586214

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1582586214
Reply with quote  #2

1582586214
Report to moderator
muyuu
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 966
Merit: 1000



View Profile
March 25, 2017, 10:07:37 PM
 #122

No, this is unavoidable for ANY form of PoW system in the long run.  It IS already the case BTW: 14 miner pools have essentially all the hash rate.

The reason is not "block size" or whatever.  The reason is the lottery of PoW, and the economies of scale.

Solo mining is not done much any more, because with solo mining, you win ONE BLOCK every two years or so.  That's too much of a lottery.

If you don't want more than 10% income fluctuation (RMS value) in 1 week of your income, it means that you must be part of a team that "wins 100 times" during a week.  As there are 1000 blocks in 1 week, you must hence be part of a pool that has 10% of the total hash rate.  --> there can be only 10 such pools !

Even if you accept larger fluctuations of income, there will at most be a few tens of mining pools.

Now, these mining pools need good network connections, to their miners, and to other mining pools, because every second lost is a second of hash rate lost.  As mining pools don't trust one another, they want to get good links to SEVERAL of their competitors, to avoid the possibility of "selfish mining" which needs variable network delays to get your private block in front of the public block.  

So, AUTOMATICALLY, this ecosystem will evolve towards "a few tens of pools with very good data connections and big data centres".

As an owner of mining gear, you have all interest to be in a big pool ; but you don't want pools the become monopolies, because then they will start eating off your fees.  So as an owner of mining gear, you are going to be such that you want to have "a few big pools".  In order for your mining gear to be efficiently used, you want to be able to have a good data connection to your host pool --> they need good data centres with good connections to all of their miners.

Once that is the case, automatically the above topology follows.  Has not much to do with block size.  Is intrinsic to the PoW system with specialized hardware (ASICS).  It was built into bitcoin from the start.



Automatically, if nothing else is done on top of this system, and if blocks are allowed to grow freely: this system will consolidate on one node-miner and will make zero sense. It won't be a censorship-resistance transaction system and it will be COMPLETELY POINTLESS.

That is why Bitcoin, right now, is a work in progress. Allowed to concentrate to 1, it's a convoluted, slow data-structure that makes no sense whatsoever. It's like downloading files from a standalone Bit-Torrent server running on your own computer.

GPG ID: 7294199D - OTC ID: muyuu (470F97EB7294199D)
forum tea fund BTC 1Epv7KHbNjYzqYVhTCgXWYhGSkv7BuKGEU DOGE DF1eTJ2vsxjHpmmbKu9jpqsrg5uyQLWksM CAP F1MzvmmHwP2UhFq82NQT7qDU9NQ8oQbtkQ
Carlton Banks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2646
Merit: 2206



View Profile
March 25, 2017, 10:25:26 PM
 #123

Advancements in either p2pool software or something similar would go a long way in starting to alleviate the problems associated with mining centralization. Unfortunately, there hasn't been enough incentive to advance these things. I think instead of removing mining from the reference client, it should have adopted and improved upon the p2pool software.
It's not from lack of incentive. Many of us have spent a lot of man hours with discussion, theories and code in mining that the non-mining world probably is not remotely aware of and quick to dismiss as "greedy miners." The idea behind p2pool was sound, but the reality was that the design is fundamentally flawed in a way that cannot be fixed, making it worse to mine on than a regular pool. P2pool is ultimately simply a merged mined blockchain on top of the bitcoin blockchain - mining on the merged chain means you're simply solo mining on a chain with slightly lower difficulty, yet still far too high a diff. After extensive discussion and investigation it is clear that these flaws cannot be fixed to make it even as attractive as regular pooled mining, let alone better. The design of the current bitcoin proof of work itself means that will always be the case. Without a massive change to the blockchain and proof of work design, pooled mining will always be possible, and the "p2pool" design will never be as good. A distributed peer to peer proof of work design that intrinsically does not lend itself to pooled mining without even changing from sha256d allowing existing hardware to continue mining is indeed a solution but unfortunately p2pool is not it and cannot be made to be it.

Got to agree with ck on this one. p2pool, as much as I like it, struggled more and more as the barrier to entry (both difficulty and ASIC price gouging) in mining clearly delineated it's shortcomings.

I see Holliday's general point too, I think a different design for a p2pool system could be far more successful, and it would be far better if proof of work redesign took that into account. I wonder if that's feasible, but we'll see. Certainly, when only difficulty and economies of scale were the barriers to entry in mining (i.e. the GPU/FPGA days), p2pool had a far higher percentage of the mining market (somewhere close to 10% at one point IIRC)

Vires in numeris
felipehermanns
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 80
Merit: 10


View Profile
March 25, 2017, 10:37:53 PM
 #124

Holliday
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1120
Merit: 1007



View Profile
March 26, 2017, 12:21:01 AM
 #125

Advancements in either p2pool software or something similar would go a long way in starting to alleviate the problems associated with mining centralization. Unfortunately, there hasn't been enough incentive to advance these things. I think instead of removing mining from the reference client, it should have adopted and improved upon the p2pool software.
It's not from lack of incentive. Many of us have spent a lot of man hours with discussion, theories and code in mining that the non-mining world probably is not remotely aware of and quick to dismiss as "greedy miners." The idea behind p2pool was sound, but the reality was that the design is fundamentally flawed in a way that cannot be fixed, making it worse to mine on than a regular pool. P2pool is ultimately simply a merged mined blockchain on top of the bitcoin blockchain - mining on the merged chain means you're simply solo mining on a chain with slightly lower difficulty, yet still far too high a diff. After extensive discussion and investigation it is clear that these flaws cannot be fixed to make it even as attractive as regular pooled mining, let alone better. The design of the current bitcoin proof of work itself means that will always be the case. Without a massive change to the blockchain and proof of work design, pooled mining will always be possible, and the "p2pool" design will never be as good. A distributed peer to peer proof of work design that intrinsically does not lend itself to pooled mining without even changing from sha256d allowing existing hardware to continue mining is indeed a solution but unfortunately p2pool is not it and cannot be made to be it.

Sure, that's why I added "or something similar". If not that specific implementation, something else with similar goals. Also, I was talking about the past (specifically when mining was removed from the reference client). If it would have been added then, perhaps enough eyes would have been on it to either improve or, if impossible as you say, replace it entirely with something superior. I think the decision to ignore mining in the reference client, was the wrong one.

I think pooled mining has had much greater incentive behind it, because pool operators stand to earn money from improving it and giving their hash rate providers the best experience.

If you aren't the sole controller of your private keys, you don't have any bitcoins.
-ck
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3052
Merit: 1221


Ruu \o/


View Profile WWW
March 26, 2017, 12:35:55 AM
 #126

I think the decision to ignore mining in the reference client, was the wrong one.

This, I wholeheartedly agree with. Two years ago core devs were saying mining had almost nothing to do with the core implementation which was a very shortsighted view. The lack of emphasis on the delicate interplay between mining and the reference implementation of the bitcoin network protocol and the block chain was a major setback. Of course one could ask why I didn't get involved then since I was busy hacking on mining code and the answer is a simple one: I don't have any faith in my c++ coding skills so it would have been presumptuous of me to try and hack on bitcoin core.

Developer/maintainer for cgminer and ckpool/ckproxy.
ZERO FEE Pooled mining at ckpool.org, 1% Fee Solo mining at solo.ckpool.org
-ck
muyuu
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 966
Merit: 1000



View Profile
March 26, 2017, 01:20:27 AM
 #127

I think the decision to ignore mining in the reference client, was the wrong one.

This, I wholeheartedly agree with. Two years ago core devs were saying mining had almost nothing to do with the core implementation which was a very shortsighted view. The lack of emphasis on the delicate interplay between mining and the reference implementation of the bitcoin network protocol and the block chain was a major setback. Of course one could ask why I didn't get involved then since I was busy hacking on mining code and the answer is a simple one: I don't have any faith in my c++ coding skills so it would have been presumptuous of me to try and hack on bitcoin core.

You know what?

That's the level of the argument we should be having about the big-blocks vs multi-layer debate. The problem is that bigblockers took it to the audience and now it's exclusively politics and we have a complete shitshow of a debate with people who have no idea what they are talking about.

If it was the level set by people like dinofelis who actually have very respectable points, then this would be MUCH better. The problem is that the bigblocker side has degenerated to the point their position is untenable. I think this didn't start completely by a problem of their own, but from a separate problem which is that of software development governance. But the reality is that every client they come with is worse than the previous one and we cannot abstract the underlying technical debate from the fact that their current dev base is completely incompetent as 95%+ of devs with experience in this field (which is a HARD field) "roughly" agree with the Core Roadmap or are willing to make concessions to work with them (me included, although I stay very anonymous in dev because this could cost me my job in finance).

So I feel we don't have a way out that doesn't end up in some sort of radicalisation and infighting. They will resort to aggression, losing the argument on that alone even though they do have fair points like those exposed by dinofelis (I just disagree in his conclusions and in some key assumptions, but I actually agree with a lot of his take).

I'm seriously worried about this. If Bitcoin depends on sorting the problem of "perfect agreement in software development" then we are IN THE SHIT because that is never going to happen.

GPG ID: 7294199D - OTC ID: muyuu (470F97EB7294199D)
forum tea fund BTC 1Epv7KHbNjYzqYVhTCgXWYhGSkv7BuKGEU DOGE DF1eTJ2vsxjHpmmbKu9jpqsrg5uyQLWksM CAP F1MzvmmHwP2UhFq82NQT7qDU9NQ8oQbtkQ
jonald_fyookball
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1302
Merit: 1002


Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political


View Profile
March 26, 2017, 01:28:54 AM
 #128

I think the decision to ignore mining in the reference client, was the wrong one.

This, I wholeheartedly agree with. Two years ago core devs were saying mining had almost nothing to do with the core implementation which was a very shortsighted view. The lack of emphasis on the delicate interplay between mining and the reference implementation of the bitcoin network protocol and the block chain was a major setback. Of course one could ask why I didn't get involved then since I was busy hacking on mining code and the answer is a simple one: I don't have any faith in my c++ coding skills so it would have been presumptuous of me to try and hack on bitcoin core.

You know what?

That's the level of the argument we should be having about the big-blocks vs multi-layer debate. The problem is that bigblockers took it to the audience and now it's exclusively politics and we have a complete shitshow of a debate with people who have no idea what they are talking about.

If it was the level set by people like dinofelis who actually have very respectable points, then this would be MUCH better. The problem is that the bigblocker side has degenerated to the point their position is untenable. I think this didn't start completely by a problem of their own, but from a separate problem which is that of software development governance. But the reality is that every client they come with is worse than the previous one and we cannot abstract the underlying technical debate from the fact that their current dev base is completely incompetent as 95%+ of devs with experience in this field (which is a HARD field) "roughly" agree with the Core Roadmap or are willing to make concessions to work with them (me included, although I stay very anonymous in dev because this could cost me my job in finance).

So I feel we don't have a way out that doesn't end up in some sort of radicalisation and infighting. They will resort to aggression, losing the argument on that alone even though they do have fair points like those exposed by dinofelis (I just disagree in his conclusions and in some key assumptions, but I actually agree with a lot of his take).

I'm seriously worried about this. If Bitcoin depends on sorting the problem of "perfect agreement in software development" then we are IN THE SHIT because that is never going to happen.

Good post.  I am all for honest and open dialouge.

The whole reason I am for EC is because its very hard to get agreement and its all been around this single blocksize variable.

I am sure there are issues from 'the big blockers' (you probably see me as one of them, that's fine).

But I also see issues from the small blockers.  For example, refusal to even admit blocks were getting fuller, or censorship of
even discussing the issues...and as you said 'aggression' -- plenty of that on both sides.

I'm really trying to make a personal effort to be as cordial as I can and see where some common ground can be established.
We're all bitcoiners.






Wind_FURY
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372
Merit: 875


Crypto-Games.net: Multiple coins, multiple games


View Profile
March 26, 2017, 04:26:18 AM
 #129


SegWit as proposed already will increase the size of the block and the burden on nodes very substantially.
 

Fair enough.  I guess this is where we can shake hands and agree to disagree.  Sure Segwit offers *some* on chain scaling, but too little too late for my taste.

I want to ask if the increase in block size through Segwit not enough for the present number of transactions. Is it not already a big improvement? What do you think the average block size be today if we were using Bitcoin Unlimited?

▄▄█████████▄▄
▄█████████████████▄
▄████▀▀▀▀█████▀▀▀▀████▄
████▀██████▀█▀██████▀████
██████████████████████████
▐█████▄███████████████▄█████▌
▐███████▄▄█████████▄▄███████▌
▐██████▀█████████████▀██████▌
▐███████████████████████████▌
▀██████████████████████▀
▀████▄████▄▀▀▄████▄████▀
▀███████▀███▀███████▀
▀▀█████████████▀▀
  ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
|
★.★.★   8 GAMES   ★   WAGERING CONTEST   ★   JACKPOTS   ★   FAUCET   ★.★.★
  ▄▄▄
▄█ ▄▀█▄
██ ▄▀██
 ▀▄▄█▀
  ▄▄▄
▄█▀ ▀█▄
██   ██
 ▀█▄█▀
  ▄▄▄
▄█▀█▀█▄

 ▀███▀
  ▄▄▄
▄██▀▄█▄
██▀▄███
 ▀▄▄▄▀
  ▄▄▄
▄█ ▄▀█▄
██ █ ██
 ▀▄▄█▀
  ▄▄▄
▄▀▄▄▄▀▄
█▀▀▀▀▄█
 ▀███▀
  ▄▄▄
▄▀   ▀▄
█  █▄ █
 ▀▄██▀
  ▄▄▄
▄█▀ ▀█▄
██   ██
 ▀█▄█▀
  ▄▄▄
▀ █ ▀
▀▀▄▀▀
 ▀▄█▄
  ▄▄▄
▄█ ▄▀█▄
██ ▄▀██
 ▀▄▄█▀
|
jonald_fyookball
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1302
Merit: 1002


Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political


View Profile
March 26, 2017, 04:52:34 AM
 #130


SegWit as proposed already will increase the size of the block and the burden on nodes very substantially.
 

Fair enough.  I guess this is where we can shake hands and agree to disagree.  Sure Segwit offers *some* on chain scaling, but too little too late for my taste.

I want to ask if the increase in block size through Segwit not enough for the present number of transactions. Is it not already a big improvement? What do you think the average block size be today if we were using Bitcoin Unlimited?

I am not a segwit expert.  I have heard it starts at 1.7mb but I have also heard that assumes all wallets in the world are using it which probably isn't the case.

I think if we truly had 1.7 today it would be ok for the moment (assuming people that left bitcoin to start using altcoins came back) but the idea is always stay WELL ahead of the curve.

Remember that demand is affected by supply in the sense that if people experience (or even anticipate) a congested network, they will be preemptively dissuaded from using Bitcoin. 

So 1.7 or 2 might be ok for a few months but hopefully we grow far beyond that.

dinofelis
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 770
Merit: 609


View Profile
March 26, 2017, 05:58:41 AM
Last edit: March 26, 2017, 06:09:47 AM by dinofelis
 #131

Advancements in either p2pool software or something similar would go a long way in starting to alleviate the problems associated with mining centralization. Unfortunately, there hasn't been enough incentive to advance these things. I think instead of removing mining from the reference client, it should have adopted and improved upon the p2pool software.

No, really, once you have a cartel of pools, which is unavoidable with a PoW type income lottery, the network topology doesn't really matter, in *reality* you have a server/client system, where the pools are the collective server of block chain because they are the principal source of the data.  The other nodes in the network are nothing else but proxy servers of this data and ultimately, the clients.

The real P2P nature of the network only made sense if a block could be mined *anywhere* on the network ; if essentially all nodes were also miners.   Then the whole network is at the same time client and server, and the P2P style network is justified.
But if you have a specialized set of nodes that *make* the data, and a *large quantity* of nodes that only *use* the data, then you get an automatic adaptation of the network topology to the reality of the data flow: server/client.

Note that *amongst* the mining pools, the P2P topology still makes sense ; this is why they most probably connect in an almost full mesh, because they don't trust one another (subcartels of selfish miners might form).  But FROM the mining pools to the non-mining nodes, the relationship is not P2P, but is client/server, and hence the optimal network topology adapts to that given.
dinofelis
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 770
Merit: 609


View Profile
March 26, 2017, 06:06:27 AM
 #132

Automatically, if nothing else is done on top of this system, and if blocks are allowed to grow freely: this system will consolidate on one node-miner and will make zero sense. It won't be a censorship-resistance transaction system and it will be COMPLETELY POINTLESS.

This has nothing to do with block size, but is an inherent property of PoW and economies of scale.  It is true that bigger blocks would push a bit faster to optimise the network topology to the reality of the client server nature of bitcoin but this is inverting cause and effect.  The network topology is not the cause of centralization, but its effect.  The real centralisation is the fact that only a few entities produce the data, the block chain.  The network only adapts to that reality but is not its cause.  PoW with specialized hardware and the economies of scale automatically lead to a few central mining centres.   That is not the block size or the network that push to that, it is the economies of scale in PoW and the smoothing out of the "lottery" (instead of winning once a whole block per year (or not), you prefer to have regular income with a pool).

This whole debate is misguided.  Block size has not much to do with it.  The real centralization is the fact that only 5 entities have majority hash power (and hash power is voting power in a PoW system), and that 14 entities have almost all hash power.  This is already the case.  The ILLUSION that the nodes are manifold, while they are only CLIENTS DOWNLOADING DATA from these 14 data centres through their proxies in the P2P network gives you the illusion that bitcoin is not centralized.  So this whole debate is simply about keeping up an illusion of decentralization by avoiding the network to adapt to the reality of the data flow.
franky1
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2674
Merit: 1631



View Profile
March 26, 2017, 06:16:37 AM
 #133

Advancements in either p2pool software or something similar would go a long way in starting to alleviate the problems associated with mining centralization. Unfortunately, there hasn't been enough incentive to advance these things. I think instead of removing mining from the reference client, it should have adopted and improved upon the p2pool software.

No, really, once you have a cartel of pools, which is unavoidable with a PoW type income lottery, the network topology doesn't really matter, in *reality* you have a server/client system, where the pools are the collective server of block chain because they are the principal source of the data.  The other nodes in the network are nothing else but proxy servers of this data and ultimately, the clients.

you still dont understand. if you think nodes only job is a data store. then please go read some code

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
Victorycoin
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 994
Merit: 504


XETHER - BET ON HONESTY!!!


View Profile
March 26, 2017, 07:18:17 AM
 #134

BU is buggy right now.  Growing pains.  They need more mature process.

Guess what -- I still prefer it to Core.  Who cares how robust Core is when they want to change Bitcoin into something that's not even p2p electronic cash anymore.

Dude you can't be honestly still saying this is a good idea, a fucking closed source patch on what is supposed to replace Bitcoin? You have to be kidding me.

im sure its just a temporary patch and the fix will be open sourced soon


First foot forward is confirmed to be a mess that needed to be fixed - you still waiting and hoping this can storm half the weather Bitcoin have had to go through and still standing. They were quick to point at the small pebble in Bitcoin eyes, meanwhile they have logs of wood in their very own eyes. It helps to be able to see a red flag and recognize it for what it is.


       ▄▄██████████▄▄     
     ▄████████████████▄   
   ▄████████████████████▄ 
  ▄██████████████████████▄
 ▄███████████████████████▄
▐██████████████████████████▌
▐██████████████████████████▌
▐██████████████████████████▌
▐██████████████████████████▌
 ▀███████████████████████▀
  ▀██████████████████████▀
   ▀████████████████████▀ 
     ▀████████████████▀   
       ▀▀██████████▀▀     

                   ▄▄████
              ▄▄████████▌
         ▄▄█████████▀███
    ▄▄██████████▀▀ ▄███▌
▄████████████▀▀  ▄█████
▀▀▀███████▀   ▄███████▌
      ██    ▄█████████
       █  ▄██████████▌
       █  ███████████
       █ ██▀ ▀██████▌
       ██▀     ▀████
                 ▀█▌

             ▄████▄▄   ▄
█▄          ██████████▀▄
███        ███████████▀
▐████▄     ██████████▌
▄▄██████▄▄▄▄█████████▌
▀████████████████████
  ▀█████████████████
  ▄▄███████████████
   ▀█████████████▀
    ▄▄█████████▀
▀▀██████████▀
    ▀▀▀▀▀

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

   ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
 ▄█████████████████████████▄
 ███████████████████████████
▐███████████████████████████▌
▐███████████  ▀█████████████▌
▐███████████     ▀██████████▌
▐███████████     ▄██████████▌
▐███████████  ▄█████████████▌
▐███████████████████████████▌
 ███████████████████████████
 ▀█████████████████████████▀
   ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
[
dinofelis
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 770
Merit: 609


View Profile
March 26, 2017, 07:32:53 AM
 #135

you still dont understand. if you think nodes only job is a data store. then please go read some code

Yes, that's essentially it.  Non-mining nodes download the block chain, and verify it FOR THE OWNER OF THE NODE.  They also relate those data to other nodes wanting to download the block chain from them, and not directly from a miner node.  If the cartel of miners makes one single block chain, then those nodes have the choice between accepting that block chain, or stopping all together.

And they send upstream those transactions that wallets, connected to your node, want to send, if they prefer to send it through your node, and not directly to a miner's node.

A user wallet doesn't need your node.  It can connect directly to a miner node.  But it MAY use your node for, well, for what ?  Convenience maybe.  A big user will of course have its own node.  For instance, an exchange may install (will install) its own node.  But it can only download one single block chain, because there's only one single block chain "out there".  If it wants to serve its customers with deposits and withdrawals, it better installs a node that accepts the one and unique chain out there, and better transmits its transactions to the miners making that unique chain.  A big exchange better doesn't rely on the feable P2P links of unknown in the network, and preferentially connects DIRECTLY to some big miners.  To be sure to get their (unique) chain.  And to be sure that their transactions are not stopped by the P2P network for one or other reason.

The P2P network configuration, and the propagation of transactions and blocks made sense when miners were "everywhere on the network".  Then, the network as a whole, served as a kind of "filter", and stopped single miners from "colluding".  But that is over, now that there are 5 majority miners.  The P2P network is obsolete in the current configuration which is server/client.
franky1
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2674
Merit: 1631



View Profile
March 26, 2017, 07:53:34 AM
 #136

you still dont understand. if you think nodes only job is a data store. then please go read some code

blah waffle


you have no clue.

i get the feeling your agenda is to make people think its ok to not care about running a full node. as if you want to brain wash people into thinking they have no way of controlling changes to bitcoin.

if you think nodes do nothing. then go be a centralist running a lite node. and let the ones that have been around longer and actually read and understood the code and consensus run a full node because we know what a full node actually does.

you spend too long trying to stroke sheep to sleep saying its ok for them to not be full nodes because core want to be dictators.
you have become too obvious with your endless rhetoric trying to suggest nodes are meaningless. so go play with a litenode if it means so much to you

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
muyuu
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 966
Merit: 1000



View Profile
March 26, 2017, 08:57:33 AM
 #137

Advancements in either p2pool software or something similar would go a long way in starting to alleviate the problems associated with mining centralization. Unfortunately, there hasn't been enough incentive to advance these things. I think instead of removing mining from the reference client, it should have adopted and improved upon the p2pool software.

No, really, once you have a cartel of pools, which is unavoidable with a PoW type income lottery, the network topology doesn't really matter, in *reality* you have a server/client system, where the pools are the collective server of block chain because they are the principal source of the data.  The other nodes in the network are nothing else but proxy servers of this data and ultimately, the clients.

The real P2P nature of the network only made sense if a block could be mined *anywhere* on the network ; if essentially all nodes were also miners.   Then the whole network is at the same time client and server, and the P2P style network is justified.
But if you have a specialized set of nodes that *make* the data, and a *large quantity* of nodes that only *use* the data, then you get an automatic adaptation of the network topology to the reality of the data flow: server/client.

Note that *amongst* the mining pools, the P2P topology still makes sense ; this is why they most probably connect in an almost full mesh, because they don't trust one another (subcartels of selfish miners might form).  But FROM the mining pools to the non-mining nodes, the relationship is not P2P, but is client/server, and hence the optimal network topology adapts to that given.


Partly agreed: only blocksize won't stop this. However lifting the cap right now will accelerate the problem.

There is more work to be done to make this system useful in anyway whatsoever in the endgame.

Seems you think it's helpless, but I disagree. What I don't see is why do you care, because your theory implies that nothing will save Bitcoin from becoming a pointless Rube-Goldberg Paypal that ultimately won't be able to compete at anything.

GPG ID: 7294199D - OTC ID: muyuu (470F97EB7294199D)
forum tea fund BTC 1Epv7KHbNjYzqYVhTCgXWYhGSkv7BuKGEU DOGE DF1eTJ2vsxjHpmmbKu9jpqsrg5uyQLWksM CAP F1MzvmmHwP2UhFq82NQT7qDU9NQ8oQbtkQ
dinofelis
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 770
Merit: 609


View Profile
March 26, 2017, 10:03:36 AM
 #138

you still dont understand. if you think nodes only job is a data store. then please go read some code

blah waffle


you have no clue.

i get the feeling your agenda is to make people think its ok to not care about running a full node. as if you want to brain wash people into thinking they have no way of controlling changes to bitcoin.


My only agenda is to understand all the aspects of this kind of system.

Yes, I'm convinced, and I explained you why, "running a node" is a useless exercise, except for yourself.  Not because I have an agenda, but because this is a logical consequence of a Proof of Work system.

Apart from "you have no clue" and "waffle waffle" your arguments are pretty weak.

Quote
if you think nodes do nothing. then go be a centralist running a lite node. and let the ones that have been around longer and actually read and understood the code and consensus run a full node because we know what a full node actually does.

you spend too long trying to stroke sheep to sleep saying its ok for them to not be full nodes because core want to be dictators.
you have become too obvious with your endless rhetoric trying to suggest nodes are meaningless. so go play with a litenode if it means so much to you

My "rhetoric" are observations, and logical arguments.  What is the real rhetoric:

"Proof of work systems are determined by those providing proof of work, and now they are, for obvious reasons, and also factually, a group of 5 - 14 entities"

Or:

"waffle waffle" and "you have no clue"

?

Which of both kinds of discourse is closest to "logical argument" and which one is closest to "rhetoric" ?
Morbid
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1196
Merit: 1015



View Profile
March 26, 2017, 10:04:25 AM
 #139

BU is buggy right now.  Growing pains.  They need more mature process.

Guess what -- I still prefer it to Core.  Who cares how robust Core is when they want to change Bitcoin into something that's not even p2p electronic cash anymore.

Dude you can't be honestly still saying this is a good idea, a fucking closed source patch on what is supposed to replace Bitcoin? You have to be kidding me.

im sure its just a temporary patch and the fix will be open sourced soon


If it isn't temporary would that sway your opinion or would you stay loyal to the BU fork?

Code has to be open sourced, sure.  



Oh, Cmon man. Just admit that you were backing the wrong horse and be done with it. It is one thing standing up for principle and another losing everything because of it. The only reason why someone would openly support this crap, would be because they are paid shills or if they have no money invested in this and are just trolling.

I admit, Bitcoin Core is not the perfect solution, but it is way better than BU at this stage. ^hmmmmmm^

Not the perfect solution?  ANYTHING is better than Blockstream controlled Core.  Why else do you think 40% (and growing) of miners
are supporting BU , DESPITE all the bugs?

That said, I would back this:  
https://bitcoinec.info/

I don't like segwit, but I would compromise.




How many of that 40% are 2 or 3 big mining pools? You have to put yourself in their shoes for a moment. Someone is spamming the network with useless tx's and this is causing congestion. So what happens next? People start paying higher fees to get their tx's confirmed. The miners get these higher fees and smile all the way to the bank.

The longer they can draw this whole process out, the longer they get these higher fees.

SegWit and LN would eliminate these scenarios and this is why they are not supporting it. The BU solution is only a temporary fix and before we know it, we might end up with the same situations where fees are artificially pushed higher with "fake" congestion.

Would you not want to delay the process and keep the backdoor open for these situations to repeat in the future?

this. as with most bugcoiners they dont realise that blocksize increase is mere kicking the can down the road..

"between 'lives' we all have a great laugh about the parts we have performed in the 'play', and look forward to and have great fun preparing the next chapters to act out."
dinofelis
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 770
Merit: 609


View Profile
March 26, 2017, 10:16:15 AM
 #140

Partly agreed: only blocksize won't stop this. However lifting the cap right now will accelerate the problem.

I don't even see how this accelerates the "problem", the problem is already there.   In bitcoin, 5 entities have majority vote.  14 entities have "overwhelming 90% majority vote", and the dynamics explaining that are pretty clear: it is PoW investment, and the fact that the lottery of who wins a block introduces high volatility, which can be hedged by using a pool.  This is *inherent in PoW with ASICS*.

The only thing that can be accelerated by bigger blocks, is that the network topology will adapt somewhat quicker to the reality of the data flow, but the network topology AS SUCH doesn't matter.  So I would think it rather positive that the network adapts more to the reality, to render the network more efficient.  The network has in any case nothing to do with "decentralization" any more, since a long time.

That said, I don't believe ANYTHING will change in bitcoin.  I'm pretty convinced that we are just witnessing the "wars" that are part of the decentralized consensus mechanism that installs immutability (by antagonists not agreeing over change).

Quote
There is more work to be done to make this system useful in anyway whatsoever in the endgame.

My idea is that bitcoin is what it is, and will evolve to what it was designed to be: a reserve currency for unregulated big business.  (or nothing).

That "unregulated big business" can just as well be a "banking layer" on top of it, like LN, but it shouldn't be integrated in the protocol.  The banking layers should be independent layers, in competition with one another, and not one single style frozen in the protocol.  But I have not to say what "should be", as "nothing will be".  Immutability.

Quote
Seems you think it's helpless, but I disagree. What I don't see is why do you care, because your theory implies that nothing will save Bitcoin from becoming a pointless Rube-Goldberg Paypal that ultimately won't be able to compete at anything.

Yes.  My implication is comprehension of these systems.  I'm into this for the comprehension of decentralized systems, and the emergent properties and centralization forces.  It are very interesting times.  When I post my views on things, this allows me to put my ideas out for comment, and see where I didn't consider certain aspects.

I used to be enthusiastic about bitcoin, I'm now convinced that it contains several fundamental design errors, and I want to see how these design errors determine the "thing" that it will become.  I think it has something of a Frankenstein creation now, and I wonder what will become of it.  I only see three outcomes:

1) total centralization, huge adoption, and the Troyan horse TPTB will use against people ; but I give it little chance.  This is the Core way.  Worldwide bitcoin monopoly by a few dark forces no-one knows, worse than the current financial system.

2) Oligarchy of miners, bitcoin adoption niche as reserve currency for unregulated financial affairs that cannot be done with the fiat system ; backbone of "underground economy".  Bitcoin for the rich, sleazy business men.

3) Nothing.  Bitcoin losing its crown to alt coins, crashing into nothing.

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!