Bitcoin Forum
December 09, 2016, 01:42:28 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Poll
Question: Will you support Gavin's new block size limit hard fork of 8MB by January 1, 2016 then doubling every 2 years?
1.  yes
2.  no

Pages: « 1 ... 1130 1131 1132 1133 1134 1135 1136 1137 1138 1139 1140 1141 1142 1143 1144 1145 1146 1147 1148 1149 1150 1151 1152 1153 1154 1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175 1176 1177 1178 1179 [1180] 1181 1182 1183 1184 1185 1186 1187 1188 1189 1190 1191 1192 1193 1194 1195 1196 1197 1198 1199 1200 1201 1202 1203 1204 1205 1206 1207 1208 1209 1210 1211 1212 1213 1214 1215 1216 1217 1218 1219 1220 1221 1222 1223 1224 1225 1226 1227 1228 1229 1230 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1807126 times)
hdbuck
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1134



View Profile
May 07, 2015, 06:01:38 PM
 #23581

Bitcoin needs to do an Uber and scoop up as many users as fast as possible round the world before gvts, regulators, and banks can stop it.  we may already be there fortunately but we do have a ways to go and it's clear that 1MB is an artificial cap on growth.
That's the biggest concern I have.

Bank-based Bitcoin competitors are not stopping to take a break and study issues - they are actively working to hire developers and build systems that can grow faster than Bitcoin.

Meanwhile, the anti-scaling crowd is telling us we need more time to study the scaling issues even though they've been saying that since the first time this issue came up in 2012.

Apparently they are the only developers capable of making any change at all.

Wait they're not? So what exactly is stopping some developers from coding the fork and releasing it?  Are people worried miners will attack and destroy it? That attack can't succeed in the long term. If the attack works once, you just fork again with a 1 line change to move the fork point forward. Miners are not going to keep wasting resources on that forever, once they see your fork isn't going away, they may see it as more profitable to mine on it honestly.

I'd run it, and I'd probably sell at least part of my stake in the 1mb fork.

problem with that is that it's tantamount to lack of advertising.  if you don't get a consensus, you risk large swaths of the community not even knowing about your fork and others advocating against it.  it would be ideal to get a consensus so that everyone knows and are all onboard to make the switch to the new code.  

most ppl don't really understand how Bitcoin works or the anything about the whole process of consensus or open source.  they'll get confused about what to do if there continues to be battling btwn information sources.  so yes, it's best to get a consensus if possible.

Problem is getting a decentralized consensus. Thank you Bitcoin. ^^

On a personal note, nullc & co may be biaised by their SC stuff, I dont see how these solutions would harm Bitcoin itself, on the contrary.
Otoh, Gavin being an MIT fellow now, I am more than ever concern that he may be biaised by the US Governement.
Besides i dont really appreciate his pushy attitude and I fail to agree with his arguments (ie. his childish blog points and "kudos"), which are anything but technical btw.
Not that i am an "anti" blocksize fork forever either.

Anyway im just a regular bitcoiner, hoping it all goes for the best greater good.
1481290948
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481290948

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481290948
Reply with quote  #2

1481290948
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481290948
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481290948

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481290948
Reply with quote  #2

1481290948
Report to moderator
1481290948
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481290948

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481290948
Reply with quote  #2

1481290948
Report to moderator
molecular
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2142



View Profile
May 07, 2015, 06:09:29 PM
 #23582

With fees, I see no problem with the market sorting it out. Except - when someone wants to minimize the fees of his own transactions, some transactions will suddenly take forever to confirm. So a possibility to raise the fee on a nonconfirmed transaction would be great. Has anyone suggested that, or is it unpossible technically?

Yes it is called replace by fee

I'm not sure. With replace by fee, you can change other things in the transactions (like outputs), no? This makes double-spending much easier. I'm not sure wether "increase fee" can even be done, since it also requires changes to the outputs (and maybe inputs).

I see replace-by-fee as a very bad idea currently.

First off, I think it's inevitable, as there is nothing that would make a miner want to not accept a higher fee.

good point, but: it's not just about the miners, is it? Nodes wont route double spends currently, right?

In other words: why isn't double-spending unconfirmed transactions possible (easy) right now?

That said, you can make a restricted version that doesn't allow reducing any outputs. You would have to add an additional input to pay the higher fee.

Sounds sensible.

PGP key molecular F9B70769 fingerprint 9CDD C0D3 20F8 279F 6BE0  3F39 FC49 2362 F9B7 0769
molecular
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2142



View Profile
May 07, 2015, 06:14:41 PM
 #23583

Block size could reach the 1mb limit at any time with a massive influx of users and the chart for average block size looks like it could possibly have a sharp exponential rise hitting the limit within a short period of time, well before March 2016.

IMO, even Gavin may be to late.  Most likely, if this increase in adoption happens, transactions will be pushed off-chain to Coinbase and other services until the limit can be increased.  Anybody opposed to the block size increase doesn't even have a working solution for scale, so I don't see how their arguments can even fly.  

The bolded part is what scares me. There's just no alternative currently.

It almost seems some people have an interest in hitting that wall of bad publicity, high fees and slow transactions. Why?

Let's just "kick the can down the road", I'm with Gavin.

PGP key molecular F9B70769 fingerprint 9CDD C0D3 20F8 279F 6BE0  3F39 FC49 2362 F9B7 0769
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 07, 2015, 06:17:44 PM
 #23584

oh yes, nice ramp!
molecular
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2142



View Profile
May 07, 2015, 06:19:07 PM
 #23585

oh yes, nice ramp!

wow!

PGP key molecular F9B70769 fingerprint 9CDD C0D3 20F8 279F 6BE0  3F39 FC49 2362 F9B7 0769
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246



View Profile
May 07, 2015, 06:21:22 PM
 #23586

good point, but: it's not just about the miners, is it? Nodes wont route double spends currently, right?

Right, but there is nothing that requires miners to get their transactions through the p2p, especially if the fee is unusually high.

Quote
In other words: why isn't double-spending unconfirmed transactions possible (easy) right now?

Because miners aren't hungry enough. They're mostly mining for block rewards.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 07, 2015, 06:22:42 PM
 #23587

Bitcoin needs to do an Uber and scoop up as many users as fast as possible round the world before gvts, regulators, and banks can stop it.  we may already be there fortunately but we do have a ways to go and it's clear that 1MB is an artificial cap on growth.
That's the biggest concern I have.

Bank-based Bitcoin competitors are not stopping to take a break and study issues - they are actively working to hire developers and build systems that can grow faster than Bitcoin.

Meanwhile, the anti-scaling crowd is telling us we need more time to study the scaling issues even though they've been saying that since the first time this issue came up in 2012.

Apparently they are the only developers capable of making any change at all.

Wait they're not? So what exactly is stopping some developers from coding the fork and releasing it?  Are people worried miners will attack and destroy it? That attack can't succeed in the long term. If the attack works once, you just fork again with a 1 line change to move the fork point forward. Miners are not going to keep wasting resources on that forever, once they see your fork isn't going away, they may see it as more profitable to mine on it honestly.

I'd run it, and I'd probably sell at least part of my stake in the 1mb fork.

problem with that is that it's tantamount to lack of advertising.  if you don't get a consensus, you risk large swaths of the community not even knowing about your fork and others advocating against it.  it would be ideal to get a consensus so that everyone knows and are all onboard to make the switch to the new code.  

most ppl don't really understand how Bitcoin works or the anything about the whole process of consensus or open source.  they'll get confused about what to do if there continues to be battling btwn information sources.  so yes, it's best to get a consensus if possible.

Problem is getting a decentralized consensus. Thank you Bitcoin. ^^

On a personal note, nullc & co may be biaised by their SC stuff, I dont see how these solutions would harm Bitcoin itself, on the contrary.
Otoh, Gavin being an MIT fellow now, I am more than ever concern that he may be biaised by the US Governement.
Besides i dont really appreciate his pushy attitude and I fail to agree with his arguments (ie. his childish blog points and "kudos"), which are anything but technical btw.
Not that i am an "anti" blocksize fork forever either.

Anyway im just a regular bitcoiner, hoping it all goes for the best greater good.

did you see my perspective on this?:


I haven't read all his bog posts but he is showing signs of understand when it comes to engaging the community.

I can only imagine all these posts were written by taking feedback from lengthy consultations and he planned the release to capture all the fragmented interests in the Bitcoin community one buy one. Leaving specific interests to fight fires as he moves into virgin territory to start a new blaze.

I take my hat off to him he is creative and that's his biggest assets.

i put this video up last month where Gavin clearly telegraphs what is happening now.  he said he might have to throw his weight around which is what he is now doing.  and he has the credibility to do so.  but you have to back up around 2y to understand why he's doing this.  my conspiratorial mind says this is when gmax first hatched the idea of Blockstream and started working on gathering up most of the other core devs into the scheme.  since that time, nothing substantial has gotten done around the core protocol as solex pointed out above. i say it's b/c Blockstream stands to make billions if tx's are forced off MC to SC's.  it's also the time when gmax started hitting Reddit and the forum about the SC idea.  while Gavin has always been respectful and even slightly positive about SC's, i don't think he's fully on board with the idea and i've pointed out subtle examples of such.  and for good reasons as i, and you, have tried to articulate in many settings.  but my point is, this is the setting around which his blog posts are occurring;  it's now time to open up Bitcoin to the masses.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIafZXRDH7w
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
May 07, 2015, 06:35:14 PM
 #23588

but you have to back up around 2y to understand why he's doing this.  my conspiratorial mind says this is when gmax first hatched the idea of Blockstream and started working on gathering up most of the other core devs into the scheme.  since that time, nothing substantial has gotten done around the core protocol as solex pointed out above.
That would explain why they were so furious when btcd launched as a credible competitor to Bitcoin Core and forced them to actually start developing again in order to keep up.

Just try mentioning something positive about btcd and/or its developers on /r/bitcoin and pay attention to the amount of bile and venom that will suddenly be unleashed on you by random low post-count accounts you've never interacted with before.
jmw74
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 236


View Profile
May 07, 2015, 07:09:05 PM
 #23589

Bitcoin needs to do an Uber and scoop up as many users as fast as possible round the world before gvts, regulators, and banks can stop it.  we may already be there fortunately but we do have a ways to go and it's clear that 1MB is an artificial cap on growth.
That's the biggest concern I have.

Bank-based Bitcoin competitors are not stopping to take a break and study issues - they are actively working to hire developers and build systems that can grow faster than Bitcoin.

Meanwhile, the anti-scaling crowd is telling us we need more time to study the scaling issues even though they've been saying that since the first time this issue came up in 2012.

Apparently they are the only developers capable of making any change at all.

Wait they're not? So what exactly is stopping some developers from coding the fork and releasing it?  Are people worried miners will attack and destroy it? That attack can't succeed in the long term. If the attack works once, you just fork again with a 1 line change to move the fork point forward. Miners are not going to keep wasting resources on that forever, once they see your fork isn't going away, they may see it as more profitable to mine on it honestly.

I'd run it, and I'd probably sell at least part of my stake in the 1mb fork.

problem with that is that it's tantamount to lack of advertising.  if you don't get a consensus, you risk large swaths of the community not even knowing about your fork and others advocating against it.  it would be ideal to get a consensus so that everyone knows and are all onboard to make the switch to the new code. 

most ppl don't really understand how Bitcoin works or the anything about the whole process of consensus or open source.  they'll get confused about what to do if there continues to be battling btwn information sources.  so yes, it's best to get a consensus if possible.

Gavin's already started coding a possible fork, you're telling me he's not well known enough in the community to get any backing? He may not go that route for political reasons, but anyone could build his code and run it.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 07, 2015, 07:16:44 PM
 #23590

Bitcoin needs to do an Uber and scoop up as many users as fast as possible round the world before gvts, regulators, and banks can stop it.  we may already be there fortunately but we do have a ways to go and it's clear that 1MB is an artificial cap on growth.
That's the biggest concern I have.

Bank-based Bitcoin competitors are not stopping to take a break and study issues - they are actively working to hire developers and build systems that can grow faster than Bitcoin.

Meanwhile, the anti-scaling crowd is telling us we need more time to study the scaling issues even though they've been saying that since the first time this issue came up in 2012.

Apparently they are the only developers capable of making any change at all.

Wait they're not? So what exactly is stopping some developers from coding the fork and releasing it?  Are people worried miners will attack and destroy it? That attack can't succeed in the long term. If the attack works once, you just fork again with a 1 line change to move the fork point forward. Miners are not going to keep wasting resources on that forever, once they see your fork isn't going away, they may see it as more profitable to mine on it honestly.

I'd run it, and I'd probably sell at least part of my stake in the 1mb fork.

problem with that is that it's tantamount to lack of advertising.  if you don't get a consensus, you risk large swaths of the community not even knowing about your fork and others advocating against it.  it would be ideal to get a consensus so that everyone knows and are all onboard to make the switch to the new code. 

most ppl don't really understand how Bitcoin works or the anything about the whole process of consensus or open source.  they'll get confused about what to do if there continues to be battling btwn information sources.  so yes, it's best to get a consensus if possible.

Gavin's already started coding a possible fork, you're telling me he's not well known enough in the community to get any backing? He may not go that route for political reasons, but anyone could build his code and run it.

no, i didn't say that.  he does have the credibility to obtain backing for his fork.  that is what will probably happen.  i just said that in the ideal situation, consensus would be achieved.  i don't think it's too late for that b/c in my opinion, the Blockstream devs have already lost.  if they persist in obstructionist behavior, they'll probably get replaced.
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330



View Profile
May 07, 2015, 07:17:45 PM
 #23591

If there is one silver lining to the block size increase arguments, it is that it shows how difficult it is to get a majority of participants in a decentralized system to agree to anything. Overall this is a good thing, since the default is to keep bitcoin the way it is which makes it harder to push in regulatory changes that are against it's purpose.

Also music to my ears, a similar sentiment expressed here. The block size discussion/debate/fight is beautiful

But Blockstream do have an ace up there sleeve, their solution can be implemented with a soft fork and all they need to do is to sway miners by offering them more income to merge mine sidechains, that is a change to the intensive structure that secures Bitcoin.


@ hdbuck, that change in incentives is a treat to Bitcoins long term security it can become destructive for the network at about the time block rewards no longer provide the dominant source of mining income.
 

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 07, 2015, 09:21:37 PM
 #23592

can one of you tech guys comment on Peter Todds claim that there was an entire book embedded in the BC a month ago?  how is it done?

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/34uu02/why_increasing_the_max_block_size_is_urgent_gavin/cqystoo?context=3
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330



View Profile
May 07, 2015, 09:31:20 PM
 #23593

can one of you tech guys comment on Peter Todds claim that there was an entire book embedded in the BC a month ago?  how is it done?

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/34uu02/why_increasing_the_max_block_size_is_urgent_gavin/cqystoo?context=3

I guess people can do what they like with their money, were there any complaints? couldn't be a very long book.

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 07, 2015, 10:00:33 PM
 #23594

Mike Hearn's with too much logic:

https://medium.com/@octskyward/crash-landing-f5cc19908e32
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 07, 2015, 10:14:10 PM
 #23595


How do you think ordinary Bitcoin users would react on hearing of crashing nodes, a swelling transaction backlog, a sudden spike in double spending, skyrocketing fees … and all of it because of an entirely predictable event with an incredibly simple fix?

They would conclude that the Bitcoin developer community was incompetent. That would make the news.


well, if this happens we know exactly who to blame.  here's looking at you ....
sickpig
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106


View Profile
May 07, 2015, 10:27:26 PM
 #23596

can one of you tech guys comment on Peter Todds claim that there was an entire book embedded in the BC a month ago?  how is it done?

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/34uu02/why_increasing_the_max_block_size_is_urgent_gavin/cqystoo?context=3

Is this a consequence of p2sh?

Yes, it is.

They used the 520 byte of the redeemScript to "inject" suitably padded text for easy recovery with strings(1) (i.e. strings -n 20).

Bitcoin is a participatory system which ought to respect the right of self determinism of all of its users - Gregory Maxwell.
Meuh6879
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1092



View Profile
May 07, 2015, 10:32:50 PM
 #23597

How do you think ordinary Bitcoin users would react on hearing of crashing nodes, a swelling transaction backlog, a sudden spike in double spending, skyrocketing fees … and all of it because of an entirely predictable event with an incredibly simple fix?

They would conclude that the Bitcoin developer community was incompetent. That would make the news.


P2P don't react per futur anticipation ... that why P2P survive from 17 years now (in file sharing).
They see ... and ... they make correction.

We don't play like FED or BOJ or BCE ... with god prediction.
We wait ... see ... and make correction.

Like normal people.

French ... but not so much   ---===---   P2P ... it's people at the end   ---===---   P2Pool (10,9 GH/s).
Comment miner des bitcoins ? Un tutoriel est là : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1114415.0
Bitcoin change everything ... an explain of this fact : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joITmEr4SjY
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 07, 2015, 10:35:57 PM
 #23598

can one of you tech guys comment on Peter Todds claim that there was an entire book embedded in the BC a month ago?  how is it done?

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/34uu02/why_increasing_the_max_block_size_is_urgent_gavin/cqystoo?context=3

Is this a consequence of p2sh?

Yes, it is.

They used the 520 byte of the redeemScript to "inject" suitably padded text for easy recovery with strings(1) (i.e. strings -n 20).

"inject" suitably padded text for easy recovery with strings(1) (i.e. strings -n 20).

can you explain this a bit more and did this bloat the p2sh tx markedly?  if it is such an effective attack, why aren't we seeing a whole slew of these occurring?
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 07, 2015, 10:43:16 PM
 #23599

How do you think ordinary Bitcoin users would react on hearing of crashing nodes, a swelling transaction backlog, a sudden spike in double spending, skyrocketing fees … and all of it because of an entirely predictable event with an incredibly simple fix?

They would conclude that the Bitcoin developer community was incompetent. That would make the news.


P2P don't react per futur anticipation ... that why P2P survive from 17 years now (in file sharing).
They see ... and ... they make correction.

We don't play like FED or BOJ or BCE ... with god prediction.
We wait ... see ... and make correction.

Like normal people.

normal ppl plan ahead too.

bit torrent can afford to take a wait and see attitude b/c it "only" involves sharing files, usually music, and is used by a small niche community.  p2p has never before dealt with the network of money which depends largely on "confidence".  Bitcoin can't afford to allow itself to be taken down only to get up again in a repetitive process.  i'd argue that the community wants to spread Bitcoin far and wide to replace one of the biggest problems in the world today; fiat money.  that can only happen with a growing level of confidence in a system that doesn't break down repetitively from choke points.  

that type of strategy could set us back a hundred years.
HeliKopterBen
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 622



View Profile
May 08, 2015, 12:05:48 AM
 #23600

Besides i dont really appreciate his pushy attitude and I fail to agree with his arguments (ie. his childish blog points and "kudos"), which are anything but technical btw.
Not that i am an "anti" blocksize fork forever either.
Anyway im just a regular bitcoiner, hoping it all goes for the best greater good.

IMO he is not being pushy enough.  A lot can happen in the next 10 months.  Tx rates could easily double, which would bump right up against the 1mb limit.  Forget a 3x, 5x, or 10x increase. 

Most likely there will be plenty of room for the block size increase AND secondary layer scaling solutions. 

Counterfeit:  made in imitation of something else with intent to deceive:  merriam-webster
Pages: « 1 ... 1130 1131 1132 1133 1134 1135 1136 1137 1138 1139 1140 1141 1142 1143 1144 1145 1146 1147 1148 1149 1150 1151 1152 1153 1154 1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175 1176 1177 1178 1179 [1180] 1181 1182 1183 1184 1185 1186 1187 1188 1189 1190 1191 1192 1193 1194 1195 1196 1197 1198 1199 1200 1201 1202 1203 1204 1205 1206 1207 1208 1209 1210 1211 1212 1213 1214 1215 1216 1217 1218 1219 1220 1221 1222 1223 1224 1225 1226 1227 1228 1229 1230 ... 1560 »
  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!