Bitcoin Forum
November 24, 2017, 04:21:52 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 ... 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 1243 1244 1245 1246 1247 1248 1249 1250 1251 1252 1253 1254 1255 1256 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 2013479 times)
Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 826


View Profile
May 15, 2015, 10:44:02 PM
 #24101

as Bitcoin has alot of enemies, why do you think we aren't seeing a regular stream of these types of blocks?

I'm not trying to be conspiratorial here, just factual, but there is no real gain in doing it at 1 MB. 1 MB was chosen to be a size that is fairly immune to spamming attacks. Opinions differ I guess about whether 20 MB is similarly immune.

Doesn't make sense that the protocol allows non standard TX's to be accepted in block form by nodes yet at the same time they won't relay or accept them if simply propagated.

The transactions were always valid.

To make them invalid would require a hard fork. We try to avoid hard forks for obvious solutions.

So the compromise was to change bitcoind nodes to only consider certain types of transactions as "standard" and not re-transmit transactions that did not qualify as "standard", these have since been called "non-standard". Along with this change many miners decided to not include these "non-standard" transactions either (but some still do).

This did not require a fork because the base protocol, which is defined by what constitutes a valid block, did not change.

As a consequence, non-standard transactions can still be included in a block because they are valid transactions from a block verification standpoint. However to discourage them, most P2P nodes and most miners ignore them.

So how come they appear in the unconfirmed transaction list on blockchain.info?

1511497312
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511497312

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511497312
Reply with quote  #2

1511497312
Report to moderator
1511497312
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511497312

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511497312
Reply with quote  #2

1511497312
Report to moderator
1511497312
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511497312

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511497312
Reply with quote  #2

1511497312
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1511497312
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511497312

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511497312
Reply with quote  #2

1511497312
Report to moderator
rocks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1149


View Profile
May 15, 2015, 10:44:24 PM
 #24102

NYT has an article claiming Nick is Satoshi.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/17/business/decoding-the-enigma-of-satoshi-nakamoto-and-the-birth-of-bitcoin.html?_r=0

While I agree the evidence shows him to be in the likely list, there is a pool of other people who worked on similar projects and participated in similar forums, any one of which could be Satoshi as well.
rocks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1149


View Profile
May 15, 2015, 10:46:12 PM
 #24103

as Bitcoin has alot of enemies, why do you think we aren't seeing a regular stream of these types of blocks?

I'm not trying to be conspiratorial here, just factual, but there is no real gain in doing it at 1 MB. 1 MB was chosen to be a size that is fairly immune to spamming attacks. Opinions differ I guess about whether 20 MB is similarly immune.

Doesn't make sense that the protocol allows non standard TX's to be accepted in block form by nodes yet at the same time they won't relay or accept them if simply propagated.

The transactions were always valid.

To make them invalid would require a hard fork. We try to avoid hard forks for obvious solutions.

So the compromise was to change bitcoind nodes to only consider certain types of transactions as "standard" and not re-transmit transactions that did not qualify as "standard", these have since been called "non-standard". Along with this change many miners decided to not include these "non-standard" transactions either (but some still do).

This did not require a fork because the base protocol, which is defined by what constitutes a valid block, did not change.

As a consequence, non-standard transactions can still be included in a block because they are valid transactions from a block verification standpoint. However to discourage them, most P2P nodes and most miners ignore them.

So how come they appear in the unconfirmed transaction list on blockchain.info?


Because someone sent them to blockchain.info directly, or they were relayed by a node that ignores the "non-standard" agreement (not rule). blockchain.info's website is also setup to be a view of the network, they include visibility into strange and other transactions. So it would make sense they would also display information on non-standard transactions that most node's won't re-transmit.

Again they are valid transactions, it's just an informal agreement to ignore/limit them. A formal agreement requires a hard fork.
Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 826


View Profile
May 15, 2015, 10:55:22 PM
 #24104

as Bitcoin has alot of enemies, why do you think we aren't seeing a regular stream of these types of blocks?

I'm not trying to be conspiratorial here, just factual, but there is no real gain in doing it at 1 MB. 1 MB was chosen to be a size that is fairly immune to spamming attacks. Opinions differ I guess about whether 20 MB is similarly immune.

Doesn't make sense that the protocol allows non standard TX's to be accepted in block form by nodes yet at the same time they won't relay or accept them if simply propagated.

The transactions were always valid.

To make them invalid would require a hard fork. We try to avoid hard forks for obvious solutions.

So the compromise was to change bitcoind nodes to only consider certain types of transactions as "standard" and not re-transmit transactions that did not qualify as "standard", these have since been called "non-standard". Along with this change many miners decided to not include these "non-standard" transactions either (but some still do).

This did not require a fork because the base protocol, which is defined by what constitutes a valid block, did not change.

As a consequence, non-standard transactions can still be included in a block because they are valid transactions from a block verification standpoint. However to discourage them, most P2P nodes and most miners ignore them.

So how come they appear in the unconfirmed transaction list on blockchain.info?


Because someone sent them to blockchain.info directly, or they were relayed by a node that ignores the "non-standard" agreement (not rule).

Again they are valid transactions, it's just an informal agreement to ignore/limit them. A formal agreement requires a hard fork.

Ok. And I see that the mempool (I run a standard bitcoind) is even bigger, but according to docs the nodes keep invalid transactions, and logically they therefore also keep the nonstandard transactions, in the memory pool until shutdown. There seems to be no way to display the number of valid and standard transactions waiting in the mempool in a standard node. Correct?

Edit: After (upgrade and) restart of my node, the mempool is only 107 long, i guess those are mostly valid and standard transactions waiting to get in.

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 15, 2015, 11:33:42 PM
 #24105

as Bitcoin has alot of enemies, why do you think we aren't seeing a regular stream of these types of blocks?

I'm not trying to be conspiratorial here, just factual, but there is no real gain in doing it at 1 MB. 1 MB was chosen to be a size that is fairly immune to spamming attacks. Opinions differ I guess about whether 20 MB is similarly immune.

Doesn't make sense that the protocol allows non standard TX's to be accepted in block form by nodes yet at the same time they won't relay or accept them if simply propagated.

The transactions were always valid.

To make them invalid would require a hard fork. We try to avoid hard forks for obvious solutions.

So the compromise was to change bitcoind nodes to only consider certain types of transactions as "standard" and not re-transmit transactions that did not qualify as "standard", these have since been called "non-standard". Along with this change many miners decided to not include these "non-standard" transactions either (but some still do).

This did not require a fork because the base protocol, which is defined by what constitutes a valid block, did not change.

As a consequence, non-standard transactions can still be included in a block because they are valid transactions from a block verification standpoint. However to discourage them, most P2P nodes and most miners ignore them.

So how come they appear in the unconfirmed transaction list on blockchain.info?


Because someone sent them to blockchain.info directly, or they were relayed by a node that ignores the "non-standard" agreement (not rule). blockchain.info's website is also setup to be a view of the network, they include visibility into strange and other transactions. So it would make sense they would also display information on non-standard transactions that most node's won't re-transmit.

Again they are valid transactions, it's just an informal agreement to ignore/limit them. A formal agreement requires a hard fork.

So any code changes made to the Bitcoin Core client do not require forks which is to be distinguished from  changes to the protocol which defines what is acceptable as a block and requires a fork?
Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 826


View Profile
May 15, 2015, 11:38:50 PM
 #24106

That seems to be correct.

And ... each node holds a different set of non-standard and invalid transactions, because they are only held, not propagated. Correct?


cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 15, 2015, 11:45:40 PM
 #24107

That seems to be correct.

And ... each node holds a different set of non-standard and invalid transactions, because they are only held, not propagated. Correct?



i wonder why they would even be held.  why not ignored?
Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 826


View Profile
May 15, 2015, 11:55:47 PM
 #24108

That seems to be correct.

And ... each node holds a different set of non-standard and invalid transactions, because they are only held, not propagated. Correct?



i wonder why they would even be held.  why not ignored?

Good question.

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 16, 2015, 12:03:47 AM
 #24109

That seems to be correct.

And ... each node holds a different set of non-standard and invalid transactions, because they are only held, not propagated. Correct?



i wonder why they would even be held.  why not ignored?

Good question.


it's interesting how us non CS trained participants can blur things together.  i guess i should speak for myself; as one unit, as opposed to a separate base protocol layer governed by rigid communication rules interacting with an overlaying program, like Bitcoin Core and other wallets, which have the flexibility to interact with the protocol in any number of ways, including loose agreements.
rocks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1149


View Profile
May 16, 2015, 12:37:05 AM
 #24110

as Bitcoin has alot of enemies, why do you think we aren't seeing a regular stream of these types of blocks?

I'm not trying to be conspiratorial here, just factual, but there is no real gain in doing it at 1 MB. 1 MB was chosen to be a size that is fairly immune to spamming attacks. Opinions differ I guess about whether 20 MB is similarly immune.

Doesn't make sense that the protocol allows non standard TX's to be accepted in block form by nodes yet at the same time they won't relay or accept them if simply propagated.

The transactions were always valid.

To make them invalid would require a hard fork. We try to avoid hard forks for obvious solutions.

So the compromise was to change bitcoind nodes to only consider certain types of transactions as "standard" and not re-transmit transactions that did not qualify as "standard", these have since been called "non-standard". Along with this change many miners decided to not include these "non-standard" transactions either (but some still do).

This did not require a fork because the base protocol, which is defined by what constitutes a valid block, did not change.

As a consequence, non-standard transactions can still be included in a block because they are valid transactions from a block verification standpoint. However to discourage them, most P2P nodes and most miners ignore them.

So how come they appear in the unconfirmed transaction list on blockchain.info?


Because someone sent them to blockchain.info directly, or they were relayed by a node that ignores the "non-standard" agreement (not rule). blockchain.info's website is also setup to be a view of the network, they include visibility into strange and other transactions. So it would make sense they would also display information on non-standard transactions that most node's won't re-transmit.

Again they are valid transactions, it's just an informal agreement to ignore/limit them. A formal agreement requires a hard fork.

So any code changes made to the Bitcoin Core client do not require forks which is to be distinguished from  changes to the protocol which defines what is acceptable as a block and requires a fork?

I'd define it as Bitcoin is the blockchain data structure and the set of rules that govern what constitutes a valid block. If you want to change the rules that govern what is a valid block (transactions and block structure) then that is a fork. Anything else is not a fork. The reasoning is simple, these are the rules that govern if a specific chain is valid and thus govern consensus.

Nodes however can operate however they want, as long as they agree on the rules that define a valid block. If some nodes decide on a different set of rules, then they will be forced onto their own chain and lose consensus with the main chain.

Take Gavin's IBLT proposal as an example. This is a major change to bitcoind that changes how nodes communicate blocks to each other. This is not a fork simply because it does not change anything at all about what defines a valid or invalid block. Just the communication of blocks.

Take LukeJr's insertion of Ubuntu nodes that block SatoshiDice type services into the Ubuntu default client. This was not a fork because he simply made the nodes decide not to relay transactions to/from specific addresses, but these nodes still followed the same rules on what is a valid block, and so they would accept these transactions after they were confirmed in a block. (To do otherwise would be a fork and they would be kicked onto their own tiny chain).
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
May 16, 2015, 01:03:11 AM
 #24111

as Bitcoin has alot of enemies, why do you think we aren't seeing a regular stream of these types of blocks?

I'm not trying to be conspiratorial here, just factual, but there is no real gain in doing it at 1 MB. 1 MB was chosen to be a size that is fairly immune to spamming attacks. Opinions differ I guess about whether 20 MB is similarly immune.

Doesn't make sense that the protocol allows non standard TX's to be accepted in block form by nodes yet at the same time they won't relay or accept them if simply propagated.

The transactions were always valid.

To make them invalid would require a hard fork. We try to avoid hard forks for obvious solutions.

So the compromise was to change bitcoind nodes to only consider certain types of transactions as "standard" and not re-transmit transactions that did not qualify as "standard", these have since been called "non-standard". Along with this change many miners decided to not include these "non-standard" transactions either (but some still do).

This did not require a fork because the base protocol, which is defined by what constitutes a valid block, did not change.

As a consequence, non-standard transactions can still be included in a block because they are valid transactions from a block verification standpoint. However to discourage them, most P2P nodes and most miners ignore them.

So how come they appear in the unconfirmed transaction list on blockchain.info?


Because someone sent them to blockchain.info directly, or they were relayed by a node that ignores the "non-standard" agreement (not rule). blockchain.info's website is also setup to be a view of the network, they include visibility into strange and other transactions. So it would make sense they would also display information on non-standard transactions that most node's won't re-transmit.

Again they are valid transactions, it's just an informal agreement to ignore/limit them. A formal agreement requires a hard fork.

So any code changes made to the Bitcoin Core client do not require forks which is to be distinguished from  changes to the protocol which defines what is acceptable as a block and requires a fork?

I'd define it as Bitcoin is the blockchain data structure and the set of rules that govern what constitutes a valid block. If you want to change the rules that govern what is a valid block (transactions and block structure) then that is a fork. Anything else is not a fork. The reasoning is simple, these are the rules that govern if a specific chain is valid and thus govern consensus.

Nodes however can operate however they want, as long as they agree on the rules that define a valid block. If some nodes decide on a different set of rules, then they will be forced onto their own chain and lose consensus with the main chain.

Take Gavin's IBLT proposal as an example. This is a major change to bitcoind that changes how nodes communicate blocks to each other. This is not a fork simply because it does not change anything at all about what defines a valid or invalid block. Just the communication of blocks.

Take LukeJr's insertion of Ubuntu nodes that block SatoshiDice type services into the Ubuntu default client. This was not a fork because he simply made the nodes decide not to relay transactions to/from specific addresses, but these nodes still followed the same rules on what is a valid block, and so they would accept these transactions after they were confirmed in a block. (To do otherwise would be a fork and they would be kicked onto their own tiny chain).

and your definition of a hard vs soft fork?
Rizla2345
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 238


View Profile
May 16, 2015, 01:05:38 AM
 #24112

The stock market seems ripe for a major collapse. Is gold likely to rocket? And bitcoin? Also the dollar has been sagging quite a bit lately. That should help gold but what about BTC?
sidhujag
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652


View Profile
May 16, 2015, 03:08:23 AM
 #24113

The stock market seems ripe for a major collapse. Is gold likely to rocket? And bitcoin? Also the dollar has been sagging quite a bit lately. That should help gold but what about BTC?
I like the stock market here.. Lots of high risk gamblers will make a fortune in coming time.. Usd also a good buy right now.

★☆★Syscoin - Decentralized Marketplace and Multisig Platform
Pay with Bitcoin, ZCash and many more
For more visit Syscoin.org  ★☆★
solex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078


100 satoshis -> ISO code


View Profile
May 16, 2015, 04:00:12 AM
 #24114

Compromise solution: up to 500 tps on-chain while keeping the 1MB limit, however, a hard-fork is still needed.

This is an idea which I have been mulling over since Gavin came up with IBLT, but have not expounded because, until recently I did not realise the depth of support within Core dev for maintaining the 1MB. If dev are not able to compromise on a can-kick, e.g. 20MB, or an adaptive limit which leverages the demand for larger blocks with pressure to keep a cleaner UTXO set / better fees market, then there is an alternative. Also, Pieter's "headers-first" change which went live in version 0.10 makes this alternative safer on resync.

A "third way": Decoupling the size limit check on blocks from new block messages.

Today, the 1MB size limit is bluntly used to check any block which a node sees. It does not matter whether the block being checked is 2 years old and just read from disk, or whether it is a new block announcement to a fully-synced node. The principle here is that the 1MB check would be retained for new block announcement messages, but not when processing old blocks, or applied after a new block is constructed from an announcement message.

A hard-fork is still required, as the window is then opened for blocks to be accepted which are >1MB on disk, and to support compression/decompression of new blocks.  All nodes will need to be able to decode blocks which might be compressed by different methods.

Notes:

Bandwidth usage for new blocks is kept to 1MB per 10 minutes. People can continue to mine via TOR.

More than one type of compression would then be supported, e.g. IBLT and transaction hash lists, so miners have a choice of which to use. IBLT could be used on top of hash lists which gives even greater compression. CPU overhead is a consideration.

The network can already handle a much higher tps of real-time unconfirmed tx so block propagation methods which rely on the initial publication of tx are encouraged.
e.g. IBLT usage is incentivized for miners wanting to construct blocks larger than 1MB. This also reduces blockchain spam as miners cannot stuff new blocks >1MB with secret transactions. This reduces the rate of increase in UTXO relative to average block size increase.

Fees on a 20MB disk block would approximate the 6.25 reward in 5 years time. This happy state could be reached while retaining the 1MB limit on new block messages.

Resync would still require sending blocks >1MB, however this is not on the critical path for the whole network, just one node.

Current status:

Wladimir has indicated that he wants to close off version 0.11 soon.
If nothing is done about the 1MB in version 0.11 then one of the last chances is wasted for achieving a smooth transition to larger tx volumes without a period of serious confirmation delays, (user unhappiness, bad publicity, price hit, harm to the network effect).

I suggest that if no compromise is possible in dev on the 1MB then at the very least version 0.11 should prepare the way for block compression, and provide an incentive for it to be used, incorporating software to decode an IBLT, and be able to use transaction hashes like the block relay service. This might take a number of weeks/months, but far less time than waiting for Lightning Networks, tree-chains, or other off-chain scaling solutions.

IMHO, the safest hard fork uses both a block version transition PLUS a 30 or 60 day grace period. i.e. after the 75% target is reached, a delay occurs before the change becomes effective. This achieves mining consensus and also allows non-mining nodes and laggard miners more time to upgrade.

Have at it!

Rizla2345
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 238


View Profile
May 16, 2015, 04:13:48 AM
 #24115

The stock market seems ripe for a major collapse. Is gold likely to rocket? And bitcoin? Also the dollar has been sagging quite a bit lately. That should help gold but what about BTC?
I like the stock market here.. Lots of high risk gamblers will make a fortune in coming time.. Usd also a good buy right now.

Well, you know what they say, sell when they yell etc. It looks rather stretched to me, that is DOW, NAS, S&P. But I suspect that there might be something attractive in smaller caps which have been overlooked while the big boys were being pumped up.
sidhujag
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652


View Profile
May 16, 2015, 04:18:15 AM
 #24116

The stock market seems ripe for a major collapse. Is gold likely to rocket? And bitcoin? Also the dollar has been sagging quite a bit lately. That should help gold but what about BTC?
I like the stock market here.. Lots of high risk gamblers will make a fortune in coming time.. Usd also a good buy right now.

Well, you know what they say, sell when they yell etc. It looks rather stretched to me, that is DOW, NAS, S&P. But I suspect that there might be something attractive in smaller caps which have been overlooked while the big boys were being pumped up.
It will rise until average joes are talking about how great the market is again.

★☆★Syscoin - Decentralized Marketplace and Multisig Platform
Pay with Bitcoin, ZCash and many more
For more visit Syscoin.org  ★☆★
rocks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1149


View Profile
May 16, 2015, 04:58:03 AM
 #24117

as Bitcoin has alot of enemies, why do you think we aren't seeing a regular stream of these types of blocks?

I'm not trying to be conspiratorial here, just factual, but there is no real gain in doing it at 1 MB. 1 MB was chosen to be a size that is fairly immune to spamming attacks. Opinions differ I guess about whether 20 MB is similarly immune.

Doesn't make sense that the protocol allows non standard TX's to be accepted in block form by nodes yet at the same time they won't relay or accept them if simply propagated.

The transactions were always valid.

To make them invalid would require a hard fork. We try to avoid hard forks for obvious solutions.

So the compromise was to change bitcoind nodes to only consider certain types of transactions as "standard" and not re-transmit transactions that did not qualify as "standard", these have since been called "non-standard". Along with this change many miners decided to not include these "non-standard" transactions either (but some still do).

This did not require a fork because the base protocol, which is defined by what constitutes a valid block, did not change.

As a consequence, non-standard transactions can still be included in a block because they are valid transactions from a block verification standpoint. However to discourage them, most P2P nodes and most miners ignore them.

So how come they appear in the unconfirmed transaction list on blockchain.info?


Because someone sent them to blockchain.info directly, or they were relayed by a node that ignores the "non-standard" agreement (not rule). blockchain.info's website is also setup to be a view of the network, they include visibility into strange and other transactions. So it would make sense they would also display information on non-standard transactions that most node's won't re-transmit.

Again they are valid transactions, it's just an informal agreement to ignore/limit them. A formal agreement requires a hard fork.

So any code changes made to the Bitcoin Core client do not require forks which is to be distinguished from  changes to the protocol which defines what is acceptable as a block and requires a fork?

I'd define it as Bitcoin is the blockchain data structure and the set of rules that govern what constitutes a valid block. If you want to change the rules that govern what is a valid block (transactions and block structure) then that is a fork. Anything else is not a fork. The reasoning is simple, these are the rules that govern if a specific chain is valid and thus govern consensus.

Nodes however can operate however they want, as long as they agree on the rules that define a valid block. If some nodes decide on a different set of rules, then they will be forced onto their own chain and lose consensus with the main chain.

Take Gavin's IBLT proposal as an example. This is a major change to bitcoind that changes how nodes communicate blocks to each other. This is not a fork simply because it does not change anything at all about what defines a valid or invalid block. Just the communication of blocks.

Take LukeJr's insertion of Ubuntu nodes that block SatoshiDice type services into the Ubuntu default client. This was not a fork because he simply made the nodes decide not to relay transactions to/from specific addresses, but these nodes still followed the same rules on what is a valid block, and so they would accept these transactions after they were confirmed in a block. (To do otherwise would be a fork and they would be kicked onto their own tiny chain).

and your definition of a hard vs soft fork?

They are both forks in the sense above.

The difference is in whether or not all nodes need to change to accept blocks under the new rules or if the change is backward compatible and old nodes can still function without changing themselves.

This is a good description
http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/30817/what-is-a-soft-fork

Obviously a soft fork is easier to roll out. A hard fork required everyone to agree to the change and the exact block to change.
PenguinFire
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154


That Darn Cat


View Profile
May 16, 2015, 04:59:26 AM
 #24118

Based on the responses, gold and Bitcoin are not very related at all.  Is  that the summery here?

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 16, 2015, 05:42:59 AM
 #24119

Your whole attitude of riding into this thread on your high horse and 'prodding' people who I have come to hugely respect is pushing it, though.

I respect many of those in this thread who deserve the respect because their comments are factual (or they don't persist ignorantly when someone points out an error) and they don't pick silly fights with me because of ego. Examples include Peter R, NewLiberty, smooth, etc.. Note what I did not write. Did I write they want to associate with me?

You're being a know-it-all and smartass and you should be clever enough to predict the reaction and you should be emotionally prepared for it.

Yes I know the reaction of b-listers when they are factually corrected. Instead of recognizing error and moving forward on learning and synergy, they play their egos all over the thread wasting all our time.

My mistake is letting them drag me into it, thus making it appear as I am the one with the problem.

It seems you aren't and frankly name-calling is something I hadn't expected from you. Kinda sad.

If you interpret a little tease as disrespect then that's entirely on you.

If you interpret "arsehole" as disrespect then that's entirely on you.  Huh

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
May 16, 2015, 05:48:47 AM
 #24120

IMO this block size debate is not about block size but other interests.

Correct (I agree). The block size must be increased. Within the current design (even with IBLT) this is driving Bitcoin towards centralization as I have outlined. And only a radical redesign that removed transaction data from blocks could change that. So increasing block size and implementing IBLT has to be done and moving towards censorship (via increased centralization) has to be accepted. The only alternative is radical redesign.

Butthurt idols aside, it is better when we deal in reality and not fantasy. I would bother to explain why mentioning Nash equilibrium in this context is not applicable, but I see that my efforts here are not welcome.

Pages: « 1 ... 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 1243 1244 1245 1246 1247 1248 1249 1250 1251 1252 1253 1254 1255 1256 ... 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!