Bitcoin Forum
November 25, 2017, 10:06:56 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [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 ... 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 1232 1233 1234 1235 1236 1237 1238 1239 1240 1241 1242 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 2014162 times)
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 11, 2015, 02:47:01 AM
 #23821

So that is one argument that can be made against the pool's having control. Note it doesn't impact my other upthread (and very on topic) point that larger blocks favor centralization because higher orphan rates do.

larger bloat blocks have a higher chance of being orphaned

I reiterate my upthread point that higher orphan rate favors larger pools because they will be better connected (don't forget the NSA has direct taps on major trunk lines and the high-speed traders on Wall Street have this superior connectivity too) and thus mine on orphaned chains less, thus have high profits for their miners, thus driving more miners to them and making the smaller pools go bankrupt. This is a variant of the selfish mining effect.

Thus I will repeat again that larger blocks = centralization.

I hope that is clear now, since apparently you didn't get it the first time and apparently ignored or didn't understand me?

(if you did ignore before, covering your ears won't help you)

My radical re-design totally eliminates the issue of orphans and the critical advantages of connectivity latency. It is a radical paradigm shift that solves the problem that Bitcoin was designed to be centralized and there is nothing you can do within Bitcoin's current design to stop that! (I will elaborate soon)

Add: and the key point of distinction is that in Bitcoin in order to get a transaction to have a confirmation then it must be put into a block. In my novel new design, transactions don't have to be put in blocks in order to be confirmed. That is a very strong head scratching hint for you!

well that'll be a trick b/c the blockchain is Satoshi's fundamental contribution to tx security that was missing for all these decades of digital money formation.  each block cements the tx's into the chain via POW.  

you need to elaborate on your purported innovation to have any meaningful discussion.

Wink its a puzzle and you took the expected path into the maze and that is why you did not solve it. Epiphanies are like that. Yes I will have to elaborate but I am not going to give away such a valuable insight for free. I'd rather implement and profit. Wouldn't you?

You'd be crazy not to invest.

Yes it is a trick. The key insight is into how to make things orthogonal with a clever twist. I must admit, the more I think about it, the less obvious it is. I do have the antithetic weakness of the Dunning-Kruger syndrome, "Conversely, highly skilled individuals tend to underestimate their relative competence, erroneously assuming that tasks which are easy for them are also easy for others.".

For $10,000 investment and promise of secrecy, you can find out now.

Note my Bitmessage is not functioning on my new ISP, so anyone that wants to talk with me should PM me then we will go into encrypted webchat (very easy just load a webpage and chat).

as i was talking about IBLT above, if we get that implemented according to Gavin's proposal, that would eliminate your theoretic large pool "improved connectivity" advantage.  
1511604416
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511604416

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511604416
Reply with quote  #2

1511604416
Report to moderator
1511604416
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511604416

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511604416
Reply with quote  #2

1511604416
Report to moderator
"Bitcoin: mining our own business since 2009" -- Pieter Wuille
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1511604416
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511604416

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511604416
Reply with quote  #2

1511604416
Report to moderator
1511604416
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511604416

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511604416
Reply with quote  #2

1511604416
Report to moderator
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 11, 2015, 02:59:50 AM
 #23822

as i was talking about IBLT above, if we get that implemented according to Gavin's proposal, that would eliminate your theoretic large pool "improved connectivity" advantage.  

Indeed. But technically it won't work. I don't have time to go into that today, but I will soon. Even Gavin has admitted there are yet unresolved problems. I haven't been following it lately, so I will need to go and dig back into it. But again, not today. I am already behind schedule today.

And even if IBLT works, it can't address the Transaction Withholding Attack nor the point I made about getblocktemplate being impotent against the complacency of the masses.

And the other problem is IBLT may never be able to be deployed. Hard forks are political hurdles. This will be a huge one.

P.S. afaik Gavin has never designed something significant for Bitcoin. All the major stuff was decided before Satoshi left. Correct me if I am mistaken.

Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
May 11, 2015, 03:29:29 AM
 #23823

And the other problem is IBLT may never be able to be deployed. Hard forks are political hurdles. This will be a huge one.

Can you explain why adding IBLT support would be a hard fork?

Run Bitcoin Unlimited (www.bitcoinunlimited.info)
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 11, 2015, 03:30:08 AM
 #23824

I believe I know how to solve that.  There are 3 innovations that form the core of a microtxn coin -- a problem I've been keen to solve because like I said years ago i think there are room 4 3 coins:
BTC: first mover for holding and large txns.
AnonCoin: maybe MRO
MicroCoin: undefined.

The 3 innovations are:
1. UTXO oriented protocol and storage.  (Merkle UTXO trees that I discussed previously)
2. UTXO size consolidation.  There are various approaches.  The previously mentioned idea for addtl fees if outputs > inputs is not quite there.  Better is addtl fee for every not-previously seen address and UTXO merkle is changed to be address-with-balance merkle tree.  Other ideas are to make address creation expensive (like vanity addresses) and address consolidation txn gets fee rebate.
3. Transformation of blockchain to scale.

What was the upthread name and link to Russel's (recently hired by Blockstream sheesh I can remember that but not the name) summary of the off-chain proposal ("lighting" something) for real-time transactions employing a payment channel (you dedicate some BTC to a particular recipient which you can dole out in real-time)?

Some real-time txs are micropayments and some micropayments are real-time, but not all real-time txs are micropayments and not all micropayments are real-time. Thus you are addressing an orthogonal need to scale the blockchain for higher tx volume.

Recall upthread one of my several reasons for stating that getblocktemplate will lose efficacy is because miners won't be able to process a million or billion txs per second.

What do you mean by point #3?

Afaics, it appears you are proposing to compress the UXTO, but you are not addressing the scaling problem. (Bounded) compression doesn't solve scaling (they are different complexity levels).

The only solution for microtxns that scales is to remove the UXTO entirely! (You've said you are not restricting me from mentioning my solution, so I mention it again!)

Anyway hoping to lay out my microcoin in a doc soon but I can't wrap my head around how to play nice with bitcoin... sidechain altcoin etc... what would you guys do?

The solution is going to be so radically different, I don't think it is going to work as a side or merge-mined chain. But I reserve final judgment after working through all the finer details.

tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2324


View Profile
May 11, 2015, 03:31:04 AM
 #23825

On a different topic (as cypherdoc says), the first thing I thought of when I read up on IBLT's is that they could be a marvelously efficient way to communicate info needed to ensure that transaction blocks were correctly formed in a number of ways.  One biggie would be that they contained only 'authorized' transactions and/or did not contain 'unauthorized' ones.  Such a thing would be necessary and necessarily efficient in order to implement whitelisting or blacklisting.  To this day I have seen nobody comment about this (potential) 'feature' of such a development.

I can put your mind at rest there.
What you describe as "authorized" is really "50+% consensus", i.e. that an unconfirmed transaction is acceptable by the majority of nodes.
Consider the existing blockchain. It is full of confirmed tx which were accepted by at least 50+% of the hashing power. There were many orphan blocks which a minority of nodes might have accepted, but were discarded by the majority.

One of the powerful aspects of IBLT is that it creates consensus on unconfirmed tx. It makes the Bitcoin protocol function more closely to how all its users expect it to work.

Right now there are several thousand users who expect their transaction(s) to get confirmed in the next block, and thousands of nodes who have a very similar view of those transactions. Usually, miners are good citizens and include many of the pending transactions. However, a block could be mined where all this consensus is ignored and the new block is full of transactions which the miner has "pulled out of his ass" (real-world business or not) with fees payable to himself. Apart from providing PoW security to older blocks, the new block is unhelpful, and many of them together is an attack.

So the "unauthorized" transactions are simply those that are already missing from the majority of the network's node mempools. The reason they are missing is that they have been discarded by most nodes, or never seen by them because the miner kept them quiet until finding a block.

There is no whitelisting or blacklisting unless 51% of the nodes are using a whitelist or blacklist. If they are then there then that is a majority decision.
Also, standard blocks with full tx would certainly remain supported even if IBLT was fully functional and in widespread use.

That does not particularly put my mind to rest.

I am concerned about 'consensus' being an AND operation involving protocol legality and political legality.

Implementationally, if unconfirmed transactions are time sequence ordered, it would be practical to build a work set as a checkmarked list of legal transactions in forming work units (to be distributed if one is running a pool or ground on if one is mining within one's own farm.)  This could be accomplished more efficiently if with an system like IBLT to communicate with a tainting authority.  The miner and the tainting authority would only need to communicate the out-of-bounds transactions and the count of these could be fairly small...at least initially...

I should think also that legal transactions which took some time to verify (within the taint authority's system) could be grouped as a initial chunk onto the next block.  A side-channel could transmit this list (for a fee) to miners who are clients.  With miners operating at the pleasure of the state and compelled to utilize the services of a chartered tainting authority in order to protect us and our children from ISIS and such, the tainting authority(s) with a charter should not lack for business.


TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 11, 2015, 03:33:09 AM
 #23826

And the other problem is IBLT may never be able to be deployed. Hard forks are political hurdles. This will be a huge one.

Can you explain why adding IBLT support would be a hard fork?

If it is not, I mea culpa. I will need to go dig back into what I concluded about IBLT and I decided not to comment further on IBLT today so I don't say something stupid. I remember I saw a flaw that had to do with the assumption about small set differences and the proposed use of the invertible bloom filter or something like that. I forget exactly. Will dig in soon...

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 11, 2015, 03:33:34 AM
 #23827

as i was talking about IBLT above, if we get that implemented according to Gavin's proposal, that would eliminate your theoretic large pool "improved connectivity" advantage.  

Indeed. But technically it won't work. I don't have time to go into that today, but I will soon. Even Gavin has admitted there are yet unresolved problems. I haven't been following it lately, so I will need to go and dig back into it. But again, not today. I am already behind schedule today.

And even if IBLT works, it can't address the Transaction Withholding Attack nor the point I made about getblocktemplate being impotent against the complacency of the masses.

And the other problem is IBLT may never be able to be deployed. Hard forks are political hurdles. This will be a huge one.

P.S. afaik Gavin has never designed something significant for Bitcoin. All the major stuff was decided before Satoshi left. Correct me if I am mistaken.

we have no proof that large pools are directly connected more so or to the disadvantage of small pools.  you haven't even given a definition of both.  but even assuming that they are, which i'm not, i've still given plenty of reasons why they shouldn't want to create attacking bloated blocks to try and torment smaller miners. 
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 11, 2015, 03:39:00 AM
 #23828

as i was talking about IBLT above, if we get that implemented according to Gavin's proposal, that would eliminate your theoretic large pool "improved connectivity" advantage.  

Indeed. But technically it won't work. I don't have time to go into that today, but I will soon. Even Gavin has admitted there are yet unresolved problems. I haven't been following it lately, so I will need to go and dig back into it. But again, not today. I am already behind schedule today.

And even if IBLT works, it can't address the Transaction Withholding Attack nor the point I made about getblocktemplate being impotent against the complacency of the masses.

And the other problem is IBLT may never be able to be deployed. Hard forks are political hurdles. This will be a huge one.

P.S. afaik Gavin has never designed something significant for Bitcoin. All the major stuff was decided before Satoshi left. Correct me if I am mistaken.

we have no proof that large pools are directly connected more so or to the disadvantage of small pools.  you haven't even given a definition of both.  but even assuming that they are, which i'm not, i've still given plenty of reasons why they shouldn't want to create attacking bloated blocks to try and torment smaller miners.  

The government (NSA, CIA, DEEP STATE, banksters) has the incentive and the capability.

Did we forget who the enemy is?

We need a more anti-fragile (simplified!), resilient and robust protocol that is immune to all this fragile complexity (IBLT, latency, etc).

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 11, 2015, 03:42:11 AM
 #23829

I reiterate my upthread point that higher orphan rate favors larger pools because they will be better connected (don't forget the NSA has direct taps on major trunk lines and the high-speed traders on Wall Street have this superior connectivity too) and thus mine on orphaned chains less, thus have high profits for their miners, thus driving more miners to them and making the smaller pools go bankrupt. This is a variant of the selfish mining effect.

Thus I will repeat again that larger blocks = centralization

you do realize this view directly contradicts current behavior?  large miners do not build 1MB blocks repeatedly and instead construct the smallest blocks possible to limit latency transmission across the network.  if all "large" miners were hooked up as directly as you imply, they should today be constructing 1MB to maximize fees and try and torment small miners.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 11, 2015, 03:43:47 AM
 #23830

as i was talking about IBLT above, if we get that implemented according to Gavin's proposal, that would eliminate your theoretic large pool "improved connectivity" advantage.  

Indeed. But technically it won't work. I don't have time to go into that today, but I will soon. Even Gavin has admitted there are yet unresolved problems. I haven't been following it lately, so I will need to go and dig back into it. But again, not today. I am already behind schedule today.

And even if IBLT works, it can't address the Transaction Withholding Attack nor the point I made about getblocktemplate being impotent against the complacency of the masses.

And the other problem is IBLT may never be able to be deployed. Hard forks are political hurdles. This will be a huge one.

P.S. afaik Gavin has never designed something significant for Bitcoin. All the major stuff was decided before Satoshi left. Correct me if I am mistaken.

we have no proof that large pools are directly connected more so or to the disadvantage of small pools.  you haven't even given a definition of both.  but even assuming that they are, which i'm not, i've still given plenty of reasons why they shouldn't want to create attacking bloated blocks to try and torment smaller miners.  

The government (NSA, CIA, DEEP STATE, banksters) has the incentive and the capability.

Did we forget who the enemy is?

i don't believe large miners = NSA, CIA, DEEP STATE, banksters
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 11, 2015, 03:47:47 AM
 #23831

I reiterate my upthread point that higher orphan rate favors larger pools because they will be better connected (don't forget the NSA has direct taps on major trunk lines and the high-speed traders on Wall Street have this superior connectivity too) and thus mine on orphaned chains less, thus have high profits for their miners, thus driving more miners to them and making the smaller pools go bankrupt. This is a variant of the selfish mining effect.

Thus I will repeat again that larger blocks = centralization

you do realize this view directly contradicts current behavior?  large miners do not build 1MB blocks repeatedly and instead construct the smallest blocks possible to limit latency transmission across the network.  if all "large" miners were hooked up as directly as you imply, they should today be constructing 1MB to maximize fees and try and torment small miners.

We can conclude that large pools today are possibly not yet co-opted (compromised, controlled) by the DEEP STATE and we have no evidence of them doing an active attack.

That tells us nothing about the future.

i don't believe large miners = NSA, CIA, DEEP STATE, banksters

Where there is a vacuum, entropy will flow. That is an undeniable fact of the Second Law of Thermo.

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 11, 2015, 04:07:34 AM
 #23832

This is a strategy to actually maximize your returns.  Look at current altcoins; if you or your investors poison your coin you'll get nothing.  If you do not poision it, you and a small number of people will be the first to mine the next new thing and you may actually get help implementing it -- help which seems to be needed because haven't you been talking about this for over a year now?

I am not going to do something stupid about investors. I refused $100,000 in investment in 2014 for 25% of a 10% premine.

I was sick with M.S. all of 2013 and 2014. I could barely code. I tried my best every single day and I had investors in waiting (I've been self-funded) who were following me daily. But I couldn't perform despite my valiant attempts, because M.S. is particularly debilitating in the head (you may not realize how intense concentration is when you are coding, you keep 100 variables in your mind, you only realize when lose the ability to concentrate that you used to take for granted).

My former ideas revolved around attempting to make the PoW CPU only and I did devise an algorithm which leverages the ASIC built into every CPU. So that will still be reused. But that in hindsight isn't really a complete solution to anything.

This latest idea is only recent. The genesis was a couple of months ago and the realization that it doesn't have pitfalls finally gelled about 3 days ago. I've been coding 18 hours a day on a new social network, so I just hadn't been thinking about crypto, then someone pinged me and asked why I couldn't get rolling on crypto so I thought about it for few minutes and realized it (healthy mind now I guess the M.S. is fading).

I should add that another orthogonal aspect of my ideas is about 6 months aged. And that is how to drive tx volume to the coin. And it is intimately related to how to solve the anonymity properly (Monero is incomplete). I have written about it in detail publicly but no one seems to pay attention (except for one very respected member here who commented in this thread within the past 24 hours I will not name who discussed this with me in Bitmessage months ago).

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 11, 2015, 04:17:15 AM
 #23833

Usually, miners are good citizens and include many of the pending transactions. However, a block could be mined where all this consensus is ignored and the new block is full of transactions which the miner has "pulled out of his ass" (real-world business or not) with fees payable to himself. Apart from providing PoW security to older blocks, the new block is unhelpful, and many of them together is an attack.

So the "unauthorized" transactions are simply those that are already missing from the majority of the network's node mempools. The reason they are missing is that they have been discarded by most nodes, or never seen by them because the miner kept them quiet until finding a block.

There is no whitelisting or blacklisting unless 51% of the nodes are using the same whitelist or blacklist. If they are then there then that is a majority decision, and the risk of this is the same as today.
Also, standard new blocks with full tx would certainly remain supported even if IBLT was fully functional and in widespread use.

you just described AM's "targeted withholding attack".  also it's solution.
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 11, 2015, 04:33:03 AM
 #23834

Usually, miners are good citizens and include many of the pending transactions. However, a block could be mined where all this consensus is ignored and the new block is full of transactions which the miner has "pulled out of his ass" (real-world business or not) with fees payable to himself. Apart from providing PoW security to older blocks, the new block is unhelpful, and many of them together is an attack.

So the "unauthorized" transactions are simply those that are already missing from the majority of the network's node mempools. The reason they are missing is that they have been discarded by most nodes, or never seen by them because the miner kept them quiet until finding a block.

There is no whitelisting or blacklisting unless 51% of the nodes are using the same whitelist or blacklist. If they are then there then that is a majority decision, and the risk of this is the same as today.
Also, standard new blocks with full tx would certainly remain supported even if IBLT was fully functional and in widespread use.

you just described AM's "targeted withholding attack".  also it's solution.

I hadn't read that.

That isn't a solution because it is the wrong characterization of the coming reality of NWO fascism.

I don't know if you've noticed the trend towards consolidation in the online retailing sector. For example here in the Philippines Ayosdito.com and olx.ph merged and now I can't buy imported vitamin D3 any more because the new cartel eliminated vitamin ads!  Angry

Consolidation will accelerate as the global economic implosion hits us 2016 (mostly in Europe) and accelerating in 2017 or 2018 in the USA.

The masses love their WalMart, Target, Amazon, and other big names. The Big 5s will be folded into the Amazons.

When we reach the point that 80% of online shopping is done through Amazon Payments, Paypal, Coinbase, Bitpay, Circle and a few others, then the case of the "transactions which the miner has 'pulled out of his ass'" (i.e. the txs that are for those big names) will be most of the transactions.

As I said, the masses are working against your theory of political containment. Sorry you can't win with politics. You need a truly technically decentralized solution.

As I said from my first comment in this thread that got you all so offended, you need to make the fundamental tenet of Satoshi's whitepaper the actual reality. Bitcoin isn't. Sorry.

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 11, 2015, 04:42:58 AM
 #23835

Usually, miners are good citizens and include many of the pending transactions. However, a block could be mined where all this consensus is ignored and the new block is full of transactions which the miner has "pulled out of his ass" (real-world business or not) with fees payable to himself. Apart from providing PoW security to older blocks, the new block is unhelpful, and many of them together is an attack.

So the "unauthorized" transactions are simply those that are already missing from the majority of the network's node mempools. The reason they are missing is that they have been discarded by most nodes, or never seen by them because the miner kept them quiet until finding a block.

There is no whitelisting or blacklisting unless 51% of the nodes are using the same whitelist or blacklist. If they are then there then that is a majority decision, and the risk of this is the same as today.
Also, standard new blocks with full tx would certainly remain supported even if IBLT was fully functional and in widespread use.

you just described AM's "targeted withholding attack".  also it's solution.

I hadn't read that.

That isn't a solution because it is the wrong characterization of the coming reality of NWO fascism.

I don't know if you've noticed the trend towards consolidation in the online retailing sector. For example here in the Philippines Ayosdito.com and olx.ph merged and now I can't buy imported vitamin D3 any more because the new cartel eliminated vitamin ads!  Angry

Consolidation will accelerate as the global economic implosion hits us 2016 (mostly in Europe) and accelerating in 2017 or 2018 in the USA.

The masses love their WalMart, Target, Amazon, and other big names. The Big 5s will be folded into the Amazons.

When we reach the point that 80% of online shopping is done through Amazon Payments, Paypal, Coinbase, Bitpay, Circle and a few others, then the case of the "transactions which the miner has 'pulled out of his ass'" (i.e. the txs that are for those big names) will be most of the transactions.

As I said, the masses are working against your theory of political containment. Sorry you can't win with politics. You need a truly technically decentralized solution.

As I said from my first comment in this thread that got you all so offended, you need to make the fundamental tenet of Satoshi's whitepaper the actual reality. Bitcoin isn't. Sorry.

when i use Mycelium to scan your Amazon "attacker" payment address, it sends my BTC  thru the Mycelium server who then forwards it out to the network  "indiscriminately".  thus, the payment tx cannot be hidden or held up Amazon's ass to be released en masse with billions of other Amazon tx's for the purpose of attacking and screwing other miners.
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 11, 2015, 04:48:26 AM
 #23836

Usually, miners are good citizens and include many of the pending transactions. However, a block could be mined where all this consensus is ignored and the new block is full of transactions which the miner has "pulled out of his ass" (real-world business or not) with fees payable to himself. Apart from providing PoW security to older blocks, the new block is unhelpful, and many of them together is an attack.

So the "unauthorized" transactions are simply those that are already missing from the majority of the network's node mempools. The reason they are missing is that they have been discarded by most nodes, or never seen by them because the miner kept them quiet until finding a block.

There is no whitelisting or blacklisting unless 51% of the nodes are using the same whitelist or blacklist. If they are then there then that is a majority decision, and the risk of this is the same as today.
Also, standard new blocks with full tx would certainly remain supported even if IBLT was fully functional and in widespread use.

you just described AM's "targeted withholding attack".  also it's solution.

I hadn't read that.

That isn't a solution because it is the wrong characterization of the coming reality of NWO fascism.

I don't know if you've noticed the trend towards consolidation in the online retailing sector. For example here in the Philippines Ayosdito.com and olx.ph merged and now I can't buy imported vitamin D3 any more because the new cartel eliminated vitamin ads!  Angry

Consolidation will accelerate as the global economic implosion hits us 2016 (mostly in Europe) and accelerating in 2017 or 2018 in the USA.

The masses love their WalMart, Target, Amazon, and other big names. The Big 5s will be folded into the Amazons.

When we reach the point that 80% of online shopping is done through Amazon Payments, Paypal, Coinbase, Bitpay, Circle and a few others, then the case of the "transactions which the miner has 'pulled out of his ass'" (i.e. the txs that are for those big names) will be most of the transactions.

As I said, the masses are working against your theory of political containment. Sorry you can't win with politics. You need a truly technically decentralized solution.

As I said from my first comment in this thread that got you all so offended, you need to make the fundamental tenet of Satoshi's whitepaper the actual reality. Bitcoin isn't. Sorry.

when i use Mycelium to scan your Amazon "attacker" payment address, it sends my BTC  thru the Mycelium server who then forwards it out to the network  "indiscriminately".  thus, the payment tx cannot be hidden or held up Amazon's ass to be released en masse with billions of other Amazon tx's for the purpose of attacking and screwing other miners.

If 80% of txs are being coursed through the cartel because the complacent masses use the GUIs the cartel websites present them, then Mycelium won't be hearing about them.

And if the miners that didn't hear about them, don't approve those blocks, then they won't be participating in 80% of the economy and thus economically it is obvious who will win that battle of attrition.

Size matters in Bitcoin. I want to change that.

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 11, 2015, 04:59:33 AM
 #23837

I am headed to the gym. I wish you guys would work with me and get serious. We are headed into Orwellian hell if we don't stop bickering and go solve the damn problem.

Right now while Bitcoin is headed for bottom below $150 is our opportunity. We won't get another one.

lunarboy
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 544



View Profile
May 11, 2015, 05:00:12 AM
 #23838


Quote
[–]gavinandresenGavin Andresen - Bitcoin Expert

I think 1-minute blocks is a good idea. The best time to roll that out would be the next subsidy halving (makes the code much simpler).

We still need a bigger max block size, though.

   reddit

Just to throw the cat amongst the pigeons, how about changing the block interval?
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 11, 2015, 05:00:44 AM
 #23839

Usually, miners are good citizens and include many of the pending transactions. However, a block could be mined where all this consensus is ignored and the new block is full of transactions which the miner has "pulled out of his ass" (real-world business or not) with fees payable to himself. Apart from providing PoW security to older blocks, the new block is unhelpful, and many of them together is an attack.

So the "unauthorized" transactions are simply those that are already missing from the majority of the network's node mempools. The reason they are missing is that they have been discarded by most nodes, or never seen by them because the miner kept them quiet until finding a block.

There is no whitelisting or blacklisting unless 51% of the nodes are using the same whitelist or blacklist. If they are then there then that is a majority decision, and the risk of this is the same as today.
Also, standard new blocks with full tx would certainly remain supported even if IBLT was fully functional and in widespread use.

you just described AM's "targeted withholding attack".  also it's solution.

I hadn't read that.

That isn't a solution because it is the wrong characterization of the coming reality of NWO fascism.

I don't know if you've noticed the trend towards consolidation in the online retailing sector. For example here in the Philippines Ayosdito.com and olx.ph merged and now I can't buy imported vitamin D3 any more because the new cartel eliminated vitamin ads!  Angry

Consolidation will accelerate as the global economic implosion hits us 2016 (mostly in Europe) and accelerating in 2017 or 2018 in the USA.

The masses love their WalMart, Target, Amazon, and other big names. The Big 5s will be folded into the Amazons.

When we reach the point that 80% of online shopping is done through Amazon Payments, Paypal, Coinbase, Bitpay, Circle and a few others, then the case of the "transactions which the miner has 'pulled out of his ass'" (i.e. the txs that are for those big names) will be most of the transactions.

As I said, the masses are working against your theory of political containment. Sorry you can't win with politics. You need a truly technically decentralized solution.

As I said from my first comment in this thread that got you all so offended, you need to make the fundamental tenet of Satoshi's whitepaper the actual reality. Bitcoin isn't. Sorry.

when i use Mycelium to scan your Amazon "attacker" payment address, it sends my BTC  thru the Mycelium server who then forwards it out to the network  "indiscriminately".  thus, the payment tx cannot be hidden or held up Amazon's ass to be released en masse with billions of other Amazon tx's for the purpose of attacking and screwing other miners.

If 80% of txs are being coursed through the cartel because the complacent masses use the GUIs the cartel websites present them, then Mycelium won't be hearing about them.

And if the miners that didn't hear about them, don't approve those blocks, then they won't be participating in 80% of the economy and thus economically it is obvious who will win that battle of attrition.

Size matters in Bitcoin. I want to change that.

the GUI's != owner's wallets.   owner's wallet are connected to the p2p network, not the Amazon's attacker ass.
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 11, 2015, 05:04:58 AM
 #23840

Usually, miners are good citizens and include many of the pending transactions. However, a block could be mined where all this consensus is ignored and the new block is full of transactions which the miner has "pulled out of his ass" (real-world business or not) with fees payable to himself. Apart from providing PoW security to older blocks, the new block is unhelpful, and many of them together is an attack.

So the "unauthorized" transactions are simply those that are already missing from the majority of the network's node mempools. The reason they are missing is that they have been discarded by most nodes, or never seen by them because the miner kept them quiet until finding a block.

There is no whitelisting or blacklisting unless 51% of the nodes are using the same whitelist or blacklist. If they are then there then that is a majority decision, and the risk of this is the same as today.
Also, standard new blocks with full tx would certainly remain supported even if IBLT was fully functional and in widespread use.

you just described AM's "targeted withholding attack".  also it's solution.

I hadn't read that.

That isn't a solution because it is the wrong characterization of the coming reality of NWO fascism.

I don't know if you've noticed the trend towards consolidation in the online retailing sector. For example here in the Philippines Ayosdito.com and olx.ph merged and now I can't buy imported vitamin D3 any more because the new cartel eliminated vitamin ads!  Angry

Consolidation will accelerate as the global economic implosion hits us 2016 (mostly in Europe) and accelerating in 2017 or 2018 in the USA.

The masses love their WalMart, Target, Amazon, and other big names. The Big 5s will be folded into the Amazons.

When we reach the point that 80% of online shopping is done through Amazon Payments, Paypal, Coinbase, Bitpay, Circle and a few others, then the case of the "transactions which the miner has 'pulled out of his ass'" (i.e. the txs that are for those big names) will be most of the transactions.

As I said, the masses are working against your theory of political containment. Sorry you can't win with politics. You need a truly technically decentralized solution.

As I said from my first comment in this thread that got you all so offended, you need to make the fundamental tenet of Satoshi's whitepaper the actual reality. Bitcoin isn't. Sorry.

when i use Mycelium to scan your Amazon "attacker" payment address, it sends my BTC  thru the Mycelium server who then forwards it out to the network  "indiscriminately".  thus, the payment tx cannot be hidden or held up Amazon's ass to be released en masse with billions of other Amazon tx's for the purpose of attacking and screwing other miners.

If 80% of txs are being coursed through the cartel because the complacent masses use the GUIs the cartel websites present them, then Mycelium won't be hearing about them.

And if the miners that didn't hear about them, don't approve those blocks, then they won't be participating in 80% of the economy and thus economically it is obvious who will win that battle of attrition.

Size matters in Bitcoin. I want to change that.

the GUI's != owner's wallets.   owner's wallet are connected to the p2p network, not the Amazon's attacker ass.

Masses will use the Circle, Paypal, Coinbase, Amazon, Facebook, etc wallet.

This is why the banksters are funding all the large scale wallet startups.

Sorry you can't win this argument. I thought about it in depth.

Pages: « 1 ... 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 1232 1233 1234 1235 1236 1237 1238 1239 1240 1241 1242 ... 1558 »
  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!