Bitcoin Forum
December 06, 2016, 04:19:00 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 ... 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 1231 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1805119 times)
solex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078


100 satoshis -> ISO code


View Profile
May 08, 2015, 01:04:04 AM
 #23601

Alan Reiner (Armory lead developer) weighs in and clearly shows that he understands the Big Picture.
What he writes deserves to be memorialized here as it is pertinent to the whole spirit of "Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP"

Quoted text below

This *is* urgent and needs to be handled right now, and I believe Gavin
has the best approach to this.  I have heard Gavin's talks on increasing
the block size, and the two most persuasive points to me were:

(1) Blocks are essentially nearing "full" now.  And by "full" he means
that the reliability of the network (from the average user perspective)
is about to be impacted in a very negative way (I believe it was due to
the inconsistent time between blocks).  I think Gavin said that his
simulations showed 400 kB - 600 kB worth of transactions per 10 min
(approx 3-4 tps) is where things start to behave poorly for certain
classes of transactions.  In other words, we're very close to the
effective limit in terms of maintaining the current "standard of
living", and with a year needed to raise the block time this actually is
urgent.

(2) Leveraging fee pressure at 1MB to solve the problem is actually
really a bad idea.  It's really bad while Bitcoin is still growing, and
relying on fee pressure at 1 MB severely impacts attractiveness and
adoption potential of Bitcoin (due to high fees and unreliability).  But
more importantly, it ignores the fact that for a 7 tps is pathetic for a
global transaction system.  It is a couple orders of magnitude too low
for any meaningful commercial activity to occur.  If we continue with a
cap of 7 tps forever, Bitcoin *will* fail.  Or at best, it will fail to
be useful for the vast majority of the world (which probably leads to
failure).  We shouldn't be talking about fee pressure until we hit 700
tps, which is probably still too low.

You can argue that side chains and payment channels could alleviate
this.  But how far off are they?  We're going to hit effective 1MB
limits long before we can leverage those in a meaningful way.  Even if
everyone used them, getting a billion people onto the system just can't
happen even at 1 transaction per year per person to get into a payment
channel or move money between side chains.

We get asked all the time by corporate clients about scalability.  A
limit of 7 tps makes them uncomfortable that they are going to invest
all this time into a system that has no chance of handling the economic
activity that they expect it handle.  We always assure them that 7 tps
is not the final answer.

Satoshi didn't believe 1 MB blocks were the correct answer.  I
personally think this is critical to Bitcoin's long term future.   And
I'm not sure what else Gavin could've done to push this along in a
meaninful way.

-Alan

1481041140
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481041140

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481041140
Reply with quote  #2

1481041140
Report to moderator
1481041140
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481041140

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481041140
Reply with quote  #2

1481041140
Report to moderator
1481041140
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481041140

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481041140
Reply with quote  #2

1481041140
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481041140
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481041140

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481041140
Reply with quote  #2

1481041140
Report to moderator
1481041140
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481041140

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481041140
Reply with quote  #2

1481041140
Report to moderator
rocks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1153


View Profile
May 08, 2015, 01:05:51 AM
 #23602

Added some diagrams which should greatly enhance understanding of the protocol:

https://github.com/justusranvier/rfc/blob/payment_code/bips/bip-pc01.mediawiki

Thanks for the diagrams, they were helpful.

Quick question. If I understand the notification transaction correctly, in order to maintain privacy on future payments, payments to the notification address can not be associated with Bob's payment code, and so Bob has to make sure that payments to this notification address are never associated with him. And if they were then the privacy is lost.  

If this is the case (and I may be wrong) I was wondering about potential attacks here. For example are timing attacks possible? i.e. imagine the situation where a government agency monitoring the internet knows that Alice intended to initiate a payment to Bob for an online purchase at exactly 8:52pm.

Both Alice's and Bob's payment codes are known since they are public and in addition the time frame of the notification transaction is also known. Couldn't such an agency then look for all transactions in that specific time frame that might be a notification transaction and try them until finding one that matches? Does such an attack gain information for Eve, or are there reasons this isn't possible or useful?
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 08, 2015, 01:20:29 AM
 #23603

Alan Reiner (Armory lead developer) weighs in and clearly shows that he understands the Big Picture.
What he writes deserves to be memorialized here as it is pertinent to the whole spirit of "Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP"

Quoted text below

This *is* urgent and needs to be handled right now, and I believe Gavin
has the best approach to this.  I have heard Gavin's talks on increasing
the block size, and the two most persuasive points to me were:

(1) Blocks are essentially nearing "full" now.  And by "full" he means
that the reliability of the network (from the average user perspective)
is about to be impacted in a very negative way (I believe it was due to
the inconsistent time between blocks).  I think Gavin said that his
simulations showed 400 kB - 600 kB worth of transactions per 10 min
(approx 3-4 tps) is where things start to behave poorly for certain
classes of transactions.  In other words, we're very close to the
effective limit in terms of maintaining the current "standard of
living", and with a year needed to raise the block time this actually is
urgent.

(2) Leveraging fee pressure at 1MB to solve the problem is actually
really a bad idea.  It's really bad while Bitcoin is still growing, and
relying on fee pressure at 1 MB severely impacts attractiveness and
adoption potential of Bitcoin (due to high fees and unreliability).  But
more importantly, it ignores the fact that for a 7 tps is pathetic for a
global transaction system.  It is a couple orders of magnitude too low
for any meaningful commercial activity to occur.  If we continue with a
cap of 7 tps forever, Bitcoin *will* fail.  Or at best, it will fail to
be useful for the vast majority of the world (which probably leads to
failure).  We shouldn't be talking about fee pressure until we hit 700
tps, which is probably still too low.

You can argue that side chains and payment channels could alleviate
this.  But how far off are they?  We're going to hit effective 1MB
limits long before we can leverage those in a meaningful way.  Even if
everyone used them, getting a billion people onto the system just can't
happen even at 1 transaction per year per person to get into a payment
channel or move money between side chains.

We get asked all the time by corporate clients about scalability.  A
limit of 7 tps makes them uncomfortable that they are going to invest
all this time into a system that has no chance of handling the economic
activity that they expect it handle.  We always assure them that 7 tps
is not the final answer.

Satoshi didn't believe 1 MB blocks were the correct answer.  I
personally think this is critical to Bitcoin's long term future.   And
I'm not sure what else Gavin could've done to push this along in a
meaninful way.

-Alan

wow, thanks so much for this.  there are no other Bitcoin devs i trust more than Alan & Gavin.  he's helped me immensely over the years as i was one of the only two to donate $500 (top level) to his initial Armory crowdfunding campaign what, 3-4 yrs ago now?  for that, i got an Armory USB stick, a teeshirt, a coupla bitcoins (i think), & most importantly his old laptop with a sticker on the back with his name and phone #'s, lol.  i'm quite sure he forgot to remove them and i've only ever used the # twice Wink  he's taught me alot about crypto.  i've tried to tailor back my contact with him in the last year or so as i know he is way busier than ever and has grown in stature so it didn't even occur to me to ask his opinion on this matter.  best thing about him is he's a great guy.  i'm so glad you did and hearing his response is reassuring to me that i am pushing the right direction.  thanks again.
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
May 08, 2015, 01:23:42 AM
 #23604

Both Alice's and Bob's payment codes are known since they are public and in addition the time frame of the notification transaction is also known. Couldn't such an agency then look for all transactions in that specific time frame that might be a notification transaction and try them until finding one that matches? Does such an attack gain information for Eve, or are there reasons this isn't possible or useful?
If an attacker already expects Alice and Bob to transact, then seeing a notification transaction doesn't tell them much. The attacker won't be able to connect the notification transaction with the actual payments.

See: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/34prd6/i_made_a_3d_printed_stainless_steel_bitcoin/cqy16lr

Quote
If an attacker knows that certain UTXOs are associated with a particular individual (Bob), and if the attacker then sees those outputs used as inputs to a transaction which creates an output at a known notification address (Alice's), then the attacker can assume a probability that the Bob will send some bitcoins to Alice at some point in the future.

Bob might have sent a decoy notification to Alice, so the attacker can never be sure. All the attacker knows that Bob will sent Alice somewhere between 0 and 232 payments to Alice between the time of the notification transaction and forever.

The attacker might assume that any payments appearing in the mempool immediately following the notification transaction are a payment between Bob and Alice, but that's a problem that tends to solve itself as the transaction rate increases and can be addressed by intelligent clients which make sure to put a random amount of temporal separation between the notification transaction and the first payment.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 08, 2015, 01:25:53 AM
 #23605

notice the MACD turning up strongly.  remember that bear mkts turn on bad news.  bad in the sense of extreme controversy over Gavin's proposal and seeming chaos of opinion in the Bitcoin community:

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 08, 2015, 01:46:12 AM
 #23606

on a more general level, this is great news:

While the court didn’t reach the crucial question of whether the program violates the Fourth Amendment, the ruling gives civil libertarians good reason to hope that a massive and egregious violation of every American’s privacy will finally come to an end.

http://www.cato.org/blog/second-circuit-declares-nsas-telephone-dragnet-unlawful
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 08, 2015, 01:53:34 AM
 #23607

there is no doubt in my mind that THIS is the very chart, $DJT, some very powerful players are watching and seeking to stick save. or, yes, they could also just be powerful dip buyers of the weakest index around but my pt stands.  this is the chart to watch.  i count no less than 8 tests of the support line as drawn with someone intervening every single time to prevent a plunge (or dip buy).  their problem is, each bounce keeps getting weaker and weaker and we have a non-confirmation on the board:

rocks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1153


View Profile
May 08, 2015, 02:06:25 AM
 #23608

Both Alice's and Bob's payment codes are known since they are public and in addition the time frame of the notification transaction is also known. Couldn't such an agency then look for all transactions in that specific time frame that might be a notification transaction and try them until finding one that matches? Does such an attack gain information for Eve, or are there reasons this isn't possible or useful?
If an attacker already expects Alice and Bob to transact, then seeing a notification transaction doesn't tell them much. The attacker won't be able to connect the notification transaction with the actual payments.

See: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/34prd6/i_made_a_3d_printed_stainless_steel_bitcoin/cqy16lr

Quote
If an attacker knows that certain UTXOs are associated with a particular individual (Bob), and if the attacker then sees those outputs used as inputs to a transaction which creates an output at a known notification address (Alice's), then the attacker can assume a probability that the Bob will send some bitcoins to Alice at some point in the future.

Bob might have sent a decoy notification to Alice, so the attacker can never be sure. All the attacker knows that Bob will sent Alice somewhere between 0 and 232 payments to Alice between the time of the notification transaction and forever.

The attacker might assume that any payments appearing in the mempool immediately following the notification transaction are a payment between Bob and Alice, but that's a problem that tends to solve itself as the transaction rate increases and can be addressed by intelligent clients which make sure to put a random amount of temporal separation between the notification transaction and the first payment.

OK, thanks that helps. So this is saying that the only knowledge gained is that Bob and Alice setup a payment connection, but even with that an attacker couldn't identify what payments happened in the future (or even if any payments happened at all for that matter). So if Bob inadvertently used the notification payments incorrectly, the only information lost is that a payment channel was established between Alice and Bob. Is that right?

If an attacker already expects Alice and Bob to transact, then seeing a notification transaction doesn't tell them much.

I'm not 100% sure on this.

Let's say for example I am a Snowden sympathizer and the government has outlawed payments to Snowden and the government also suspects that I might want to illegally give Snowden payments. In such an environment identifying the creation of a payment channel to Snowden might be enough for the government to determine guilt, regardless of whether or not they identified the actual payments. So if they knew my payment code and Snowden's payment code, could scanning the blockchain history result in identifying the payment channel (not the actual payments).

I understand this situation is a bit of a reach, just trying to understand it though.
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
May 08, 2015, 02:10:13 AM
 #23609

Let's say for example I am a Snowden sympathizer and the government has outlawed payments to Snowden and the government also suspects that I might want to illegally give Snowden payments. In such an environment identifying the creation of a payment channel to Snowden might be enough for the government to determine guilt, regardless of whether or not they identified the actual payments. So if they knew my payment code and Snowden's payment code, could scanning the blockchain history result in identifying the payment channel (not the actual payments).

I understand this situation is a bit of a reach, just trying to understand it though.
An observer will see that Snowden received a payment code, but they won't be able to read whose payment code it is.

The only way they learn it was you who set up the channel is if they have some other way to trace the coins you used to do it. A good client would be sure to use mixed coins for notification transactions.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 08, 2015, 02:12:58 AM
 #23610

When asked if that behavior was typical of OTC IPOs he stated that it was, but only for successful offerings.

    “Yeah, new successful offerings. Many simply go down after the first day. Compare it to the first three days of any recent tech IPOs and you should see a similar pattern.”


http://www.miningpool.co.uk/gbtc-trading-explodes-order-book-gap-narrowing/
rocks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1153


View Profile
May 08, 2015, 02:33:47 AM
 #23611

Let's say for example I am a Snowden sympathizer and the government has outlawed payments to Snowden and the government also suspects that I might want to illegally give Snowden payments. In such an environment identifying the creation of a payment channel to Snowden might be enough for the government to determine guilt, regardless of whether or not they identified the actual payments. So if they knew my payment code and Snowden's payment code, could scanning the blockchain history result in identifying the payment channel (not the actual payments).

I understand this situation is a bit of a reach, just trying to understand it though.
An observer will see that Snowden received a payment code, but they won't be able to read whose payment code it is.

The only way they learn it was you who set up the channel is if they have some other way to trace the coins you used to do it. A good client would be sure to use mixed coins for notification transactions.

OK I think I got it.

So both parties can individually control their anonymity then. If Alice only uses mixed coins for a notification transaction she can be confident that she can not be tied to the payment channel. Similarly if Bob correctly handles the received notification transactions he can be confident that he can not be tied to the payment channel.

Thanks for the explaination
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
May 08, 2015, 02:41:56 AM
 #23612

Similarly if Bob correctly handles the received notification transactions he can be confident that he can not be tied to the payment channel.
Everybody should dispose of their notification transactions via dust-be-gone, but regardless the number of transactions that have been sent to a notification address is publicly visible.

What's not visible is who sent them, and whether they are real or not.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 08, 2015, 03:01:52 AM
 #23613

looks like BitPay agrees with Gavin:

https://twitter.com/spair/status/596504169973944320
solex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078


100 satoshis -> ISO code


View Profile
May 08, 2015, 03:43:20 AM
 #23614

wow, thanks so much for this.  there are no other Bitcoin devs i trust more than Alan & Gavin.  he's helped me immensely over the years as i was one of the only two to donate $500 (top level) to his initial Armory crowdfunding campaign what, 3-4 yrs ago now?  for that, i got an Armory USB stick, a teeshirt, a coupla bitcoins (i think), & most importantly his old laptop with a sticker on the back with his name and phone #'s, lol.  i'm quite sure he forgot to remove them and i've only ever used the # twice Wink  he's taught me alot about crypto.  i've tried to tailor back my contact with him in the last year or so as i know he is way busier than ever and has grown in stature so it didn't even occur to me to ask his opinion on this matter.  best thing about him is he's a great guy.  i'm so glad you did and hearing his response is reassuring to me that i am pushing the right direction.  thanks again.

A pleasure, and snap! I donated $500 to Armory dev as well, but it was easier with BTC at $800+ :-)
BTW. the quote is from sourceforge, not a personal communication...

fairlay
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 429


View Profile WWW
May 08, 2015, 05:22:55 AM
 #23615

Hi, we started a market on the question wether or not the block size will be increased by 2016.

https://www.fairlay.com/event/category/bitcoin/blockchain/all/

Currently the likelihood is only around 10%. Thant means on the other side that you get about 10 times your money back if you predict on the increase and it actually happens.

www.fairlay.com - the Bitcoin prediction market - the future of reliable information
molecular
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2128



View Profile
May 08, 2015, 05:25:30 AM
 #23616

Do you guys think March 2016 is a bit late? I do.

Maybe we could divert the discussion to 'when should the 20 mb fork be done', like it sometimes works with children: "Do you want daddy to brush your teeth or would you rather want mommy to do it?"

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

Activity: 2128



View Profile
May 08, 2015, 06:19:05 AM
 #23617

after reading Mike Hearn - Crash Landing,

I'm thinking: what would it take to achieve this bad situation right now?

An additional 5 tps injected into the network with minimal fee would do it, no?

so why not...

  • go short
  • open bitcoin transaction spam floodgates (at cost)
  • watch hysteria on internetz
  • wait for price to crash
  • close part of short
  • watch 20 mb block limit implemented in a hurry
  • close rest of short
  • profit Huh

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

Activity: 1064



View Profile
May 08, 2015, 07:59:34 AM
 #23618

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

Single transaction can contain 10 kB of script  => 10 kB of data
Zangelbert Bingledack
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1022


View Profile
May 08, 2015, 10:35:09 AM
 #23619

I'm not too worried about the blocksize debate now that I know even Peter Todd supports an increase "eventually." To me this says the first sign of actual delays and price impact will see all these guys change their tune.
afbitcoins
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1092



View Profile
May 08, 2015, 10:37:27 AM
 #23620

I don't know enough about the block size limits really but is increasing it just kicking the can down the road. Can we just keep doing that? A bit like how USA used to keep increasing the debt ceiling
Pages: « 1 ... 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 1231 ... 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!