Bitcoin Forum
November 19, 2017, 10:23:57 PM *
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 ... 1248 1249 1250 1251 1252 1253 1254 1255 1256 1257 1258 1259 1260 1261 1262 1263 1264 1265 1266 1267 1268 1269 1270 1271 1272 1273 1274 1275 1276 1277 1278 1279 1280 1281 1282 1283 1284 1285 1286 1287 1288 1289 1290 1291 1292 1293 1294 1295 1296 1297 [1298] 1299 1300 1301 1302 1303 1304 1305 1306 1307 1308 1309 1310 1311 1312 1313 1314 1315 1316 1317 1318 1319 1320 1321 1322 1323 1324 1325 1326 1327 1328 1329 1330 1331 1332 1333 1334 1335 1336 1337 1338 1339 1340 1341 1342 1343 1344 1345 1346 1347 1348 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 2009525 times)
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 08, 2015, 01:28:21 AM
 #25941


"A decentralized payment system must not depend on a single person's companies decisions from financial conflicts, even especially if this person company is a composes 2 core developers and 3 commiters. Hard constants and magic numbers in the code deter the system's evolution and therefore should be eliminated (or at least be cut down to the minimum). Every crucial limit (like max block size or min fee amount) should be re-calculated based on the system's previous state. Therefore, it always changes adaptively and independently, allowing the network to develop on it's own.
CryptoNote has the following parameters which adjust automatically for each new block:
1) Difficulty. The general idea of our algorithm is to sum all the work that nodes have performed during the last 720 blocks and divide it by the time they have spent to accomplish it. The measure of the work is the corresponding difficulty value for each of the blocks. The time is calculated as follows: sort all the 720 timestamps and cut-off 20% of the outliers. The range of the rest 600 values is the time which was spent for 80% of the corresponding blocks.
2) Max block size. Let MN be the median value of the last N blocks sizes. Then the "hard-limit" for the size of accepting blocks is 2*MN. It averts blockchain bloating but still allows the limit to slowly grow with the time if necessary. Transaction size does not need to be limited explicitly. It is bounded by the size of the block."

ftfy
Join ICO Now Coinlancer is Disrupting the Freelance marketplace!
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1511130237
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511130237

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511130237
Reply with quote  #2

1511130237
Report to moderator
1511130237
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511130237

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511130237
Reply with quote  #2

1511130237
Report to moderator
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1834


[LOL2X]


View Profile WWW
June 08, 2015, 01:30:18 AM
 #25942

blah, blah, blah from the Monero pumper.  btw, i see you cleaned up your sig to hide that fact  Wink

Did you see the point of the sig? If one were to follow,

"I could not agree more that developers should not be in charge of the
network rules.
Which is why - in my opinion - hard forks cannot be controversial things. A
controversial change to the software, forced to be adopted by the public
because the only alternative is a permanent chain fork, is a use of power
that developers (or anyone) should not have, and an incredibly dangerous
precedent for other changes that only a subset of participants would want."

one might find that,
"A decentralized payment system must not depend on a single person's decisions, even if this person is a core developer. Hard constants and magic numbers in the code deter the system's evolution and therefore should be eliminated (or at least be cut down to the minimum). Every crucial limit (like max block size or min fee amount) should be re-calculated based on the system's previous state. Therefore, it always changes adaptively and independently, allowing the network to develop on it's own.
CryptoNote has the following parameters which adjust automatically for each new block:
1) Difficulty. The general idea of our algorithm is to sum all the work that nodes have performed during the last 720 blocks and divide it by the time they have spent to accomplish it. The measure of the work is the corresponding difficulty value for each of the blocks. The time is calculated as follows: sort all the 720 timestamps and cut-off 20% of the outliers. The range of the rest 600 values is the time which was spent for 80% of the corresponding blocks.
2) Max block size. Let MN be the median value of the last N blocks sizes. Then the "hard-limit" for the size of accepting blocks is 2*MN. It averts blockchain bloating but still allows the limit to slowly grow with the time if necessary. Transaction size does not need to be limited explicitly. It is bounded by the size of the block."



Bitcoin collapsing.  Monero UP.
Cool


██████████
█████████████████
██████████████████████
█████████████████████████
████████████████████████████
████
████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
███████████████████████████
██████
██████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
█████████████
██████████████
████████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
██████████████████████
█████████████████
██████████

Monero
"The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine
whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy." 
David Chaum 1996
"Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect."  Adam Back 2014
Buy and sell XMR near you
P2P Exchange Network
Buy XMR with fiat
vokain
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1736


View Profile
June 08, 2015, 01:31:15 AM
 #25943


"A decentralized payment system must not depend on a single person's companies decisions from financial conflicts, even especially if this person company is a composes 2 core developers and 3 commiters. Hard constants and magic numbers in the code deter the system's evolution and therefore should be eliminated (or at least be cut down to the minimum). Every crucial limit (like max block size or min fee amount) should be re-calculated based on the system's previous state. Therefore, it always changes adaptively and independently, allowing the network to develop on it's own.
CryptoNote has the following parameters which adjust automatically for each new block:
1) Difficulty. The general idea of our algorithm is to sum all the work that nodes have performed during the last 720 blocks and divide it by the time they have spent to accomplish it. The measure of the work is the corresponding difficulty value for each of the blocks. The time is calculated as follows: sort all the 720 timestamps and cut-off 20% of the outliers. The range of the rest 600 values is the time which was spent for 80% of the corresponding blocks.
2) Max block size. Let MN be the median value of the last N blocks sizes. Then the "hard-limit" for the size of accepting blocks is 2*MN. It averts blockchain bloating but still allows the limit to slowly grow with the time if necessary. Transaction size does not need to be limited explicitly. It is bounded by the size of the block."

ftfy

Why a company and not the Network?

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

  █
  █
  █
████
  █
████
  █
████
  █
  █
  █


▄███▄    ▄███▄
███  ██▄ █▀▀▄
████████  ███▀
██▀ ▄███       
████████▄▄  ▄█▀
 ██████▀▀██▀▀
  ▀███▀▄▄   ▄
   ▀██▄██ ▄█▀
     ▀▀██▀▀
FULLY
ANONYMOUS

━━━━━
/

    ██▄▄              ▄▄██
   █▀  ▀█▄ ▄▄▄▄████▄██▀  ▀█
  █▀   ▄███▀▀▀       █▄   ▀█
 █▀   ▄███▄ ▄▄█▄▄     █▄   ▀█
██▄  ▄████████████▄▄  █▄  ▄██
  ▀▀██▀███████████████▄███▀▀
      ▀█▄█▀███████████▀▀
        ▀███▀███████▀
           ▀▀▀▀██▀▀
INSTANT
TRANSFER

━━━━
/

     ▄████▄
 ▄▄▄████████▄▄▄
▄██████████████▄
▀██▀ ▀█  ▀█ ███▀
 ██ ▀ █ ▀▄█ ███
▄██▄█▄█▄███▄███▄
▀██████████████▀
 ▀▀▀████████▀▀▀
     ▀████▀
API FOR YOUR
PROJECTS

━━━━

  █
  █
  █
████
  █
████
  █
████
  █
  █
  █
PARTNER PROGRAM
TOR MIRROR
MIX WALLET
.FAQ
ANN THREAD
TELEGRAM
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 08, 2015, 01:31:36 AM
 #25944

Bitcoin collapsing.  Monero UP.
Cool[/center]

see, didn't i tell you you were a Monero pimp?
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 08, 2015, 01:33:48 AM
 #25945


"A decentralized payment system must not depend on a single person's companies decisions from financial conflicts, even especially if this person company is a composes 2 core developers and 3 commiters. Hard constants and magic numbers in the code deter the system's evolution and therefore should be eliminated (or at least be cut down to the minimum). Every crucial limit (like max block size or min fee amount) should be re-calculated based on the system's previous state. Therefore, it always changes adaptively and independently, allowing the network to develop on it's own.
CryptoNote has the following parameters which adjust automatically for each new block:
1) Difficulty. The general idea of our algorithm is to sum all the work that nodes have performed during the last 720 blocks and divide it by the time they have spent to accomplish it. The measure of the work is the corresponding difficulty value for each of the blocks. The time is calculated as follows: sort all the 720 timestamps and cut-off 20% of the outliers. The range of the rest 600 values is the time which was spent for 80% of the corresponding blocks.
2) Max block size. Let MN be the median value of the last N blocks sizes. Then the "hard-limit" for the size of accepting blocks is 2*MN. It averts blockchain bloating but still allows the limit to slowly grow with the time if necessary. Transaction size does not need to be limited explicitly. It is bounded by the size of the block."

ftfy

Why a company and not the Network?

b/c the company in this case is Blockstream who has an interest in devving SC's which depend on moving tx's and fees off the mainchain.  they have $21M demanding a 10x return asap.  i predicted this kinda financial conflict would occur back in October.
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
June 08, 2015, 01:36:55 AM
 #25946

Here's a great example, in which Frap.doc doesn't even bother trying to substantiate his wacky, vaguely senile assertion that the bank bailouts Satoshi singularly cited in Genesis had something to do with Visa/Paypal:


The Genesis Block mentions bailouts for TBTF banks.  It does not mention Visa or Paypal.

"banks" were used as a broad term to encompass Visa/Paypal

Satoshi actually used the term "financial institution" in the white paper.  He focusses heavily on the transactional aspects of Bitcoin (e.g., the Visa/Paypal angle):

Quote from: Satoshi Nakamoto (Section 1, white paper)
Commerce on the Internet has come to rely almost exclusively on financial institutions serving as trusted third parties to process electronic payments. While the system works well enough for most transactions, it still suffers from the inherent weaknesses of the trust based model. Completely non-reversible transactions are not really possible, since financial institutions cannot avoid mediating disputes. The cost of mediation increases transaction costs, limiting the minimum practical transaction size and cutting off the possibility for small casual transactions, and there is a broader cost in the loss of ability to make non-reversible payments for non-reversible services.

There's actually no mention of central banks in the white paper whatsoever (although he does use the term "central authority" twice).  The only mention of gold is in Section 6:

Quote from: Satoshi Nakamoto (Section 6, white paper)
The steady addition of a constant of amount of new coins is analogous to gold miners expending resources to add gold to circulation.


TL/DR: The white paper focusses more heavily on the transactional aspects of bitcoin than on its potential as a replacement for fiat currency/gold.  

Run Bitcoin Unlimited (www.bitcoinunlimited.info)
Cconvert2G36
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 392


View Profile
June 08, 2015, 01:40:19 AM
 #25947

Well, good, I think we've agreed 2.7 tps is inadequate in the nearish future. We can also agree that the move from 2.7 to 50,000+ of VISA/MC is impossible and undesirable due to its impossibility.

So the only question is, how much it should increase? And what is the methodology for determining the scale of increases? If sidechains begin to pick up some of the load, great.

Plenty of time to debate it out, hear proposals, even vote by using software. The ad hominem slights and MP style roastings seem to be counter productive, though they are fun.
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1834


[LOL2X]


View Profile WWW
June 08, 2015, 01:44:13 AM
 #25948

your problem is your reading all sorts of meanings that support your view into 2 slim <140 char messages; the Chancellor's and a tweet, neither of which supports anything you say. 

it's a blowhard argument.  you're acting just like TPTB.

Your problem is you are reading into the plain text of the Times article cited in Genesis by Satoshi all sorts of meanings about Visa/Paypal, despite the fact they have nothing to do with commercial credit in general or bailouts in particular, and are thus not mentioned or even alluded to.

It's a blowhard argument.  You're acting just like Frap.doc.


Bitcoin collapsing.  Monero UP.
Cool

see, didn't i tell you you were a Monero pimp?

Not quite.  When I have 0.1% of total XMR emission (18.4k), *THEN* I'll be a Monero Pimp!



██████████
█████████████████
██████████████████████
█████████████████████████
████████████████████████████
████
████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
███████████████████████████
██████
██████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
█████████████
██████████████
████████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
██████████████████████
█████████████████
██████████

Monero
"The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine
whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy." 
David Chaum 1996
"Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect."  Adam Back 2014
Buy and sell XMR near you
P2P Exchange Network
Buy XMR with fiat
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 08, 2015, 01:52:48 AM
 #25949

Here's a great example, in which Frap.doc doesn't even bother trying to substantiate his wacky, vaguely senile assertion that the bank bailouts Satoshi singularly cited in Genesis had something to do with Visa/Paypal:


The Genesis Block mentions bailouts for TBTF banks.  It does not mention Visa or Paypal.

"banks" were used as a broad term to encompass Visa/Paypal

Satoshi actually used the term "financial institution" in the white paper.  He focusses heavily on the transactional aspects of Bitcoin (e.g., the Visa/Paypal angle):

Quote from: Satoshi Nakamoto (Section 1, white paper)
Commerce on the Internet has come to rely almost exclusively on financial institutions serving as trusted third parties to process electronic payments. While the system works well enough for most transactions, it still suffers from the inherent weaknesses of the trust based model. Completely non-reversible transactions are not really possible, since financial institutions cannot avoid mediating disputes. The cost of mediation increases transaction costs, limiting the minimum practical transaction size and cutting off the possibility for small casual transactions, and there is a broader cost in the loss of ability to make non-reversible payments for non-reversible services.

There's actually no mention of central banks in the white paper whatsoever (although he does use the term "central authority" twice).  The only mention of gold is in Section 6:

Quote from: Satoshi Nakamoto (Section 6, white paper)
The steady addition of a constant of amount of new coins is analogous to gold miners expending resources to add gold to circulation.


TL/DR: The white paper focusses more heavily on the transactional aspects of bitcoin than on its potential as a replacement for fiat currency/gold.  

i'm quite sympathetic to the concept of making Bitcoin digital gold.  that's why this thread was born.

however, what the 1MB apparatchiks are missing is that Bitcoin really does represent the "ideal money".  and that includes it being used widely in a manner that gold was never able to achieve.  and that means, widespread worldwide adoption that crosses borders and gets into the hands of individuals.  for it to be considered digital gold, however,  i already talked about how that requires cheap reliable dependable tx confirmations.  that is b/c Bitcoin is digital; it can't be held, weighed, shaped, coveted, etc.  all the normal tangible aspects that poor ppl covet or expect from physical gold.  reliability, accessibility, and affordability has to replace the tangibility.
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
June 08, 2015, 02:05:04 AM
 #25950

i'm quite sympathetic to the concept of making Bitcoin digital gold.  that's why this thread was born.

however, what the 1MB apparatchiks are missing is that Bitcoin really does represent the "ideal money".  and that includes it being used widely in a manner that gold was never able to achieve.  and that means, widespread worldwide adoption that crosses borders and gets into the hands of individuals.  for it to be considered digital gold, however,  i already talked about how that requires cheap reliable dependable tx confirmations.  that is b/c Bitcoin is digital; it can't be held, weighed, shaped, coveted, etc.  all the normal tangible aspects that poor ppl covet or expect from physical gold.  

I agree.  I also like your example of the African kid who has to witness--with his own eyes--Bitcoin getting him the things he wants, before he'll ever be able to fathom that those digits on his phone are more valuable than the paper notes his father uses to purchase food from the market, or the little diamonds he once saw a man killed for.

We're not as smart as we think.  We need to see, touch, and experience something before we can really understand that thing.  You can't learn to ski by reading online tutorials--no matter how well you think you grok body mechanics and the laws of physics.  Similarly, the world will only understand (and come to appreciate) bitcoin by getting out there and using it.    

Run Bitcoin Unlimited (www.bitcoinunlimited.info)
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 08, 2015, 02:08:23 AM
 #25951

i'm quite sympathetic to the concept of making Bitcoin digital gold.  that's why this thread was born.

however, what the 1MB apparatchiks are missing is that Bitcoin really does represent the "ideal money".  and that includes it being used widely in a manner that gold was never able to achieve.  and that means, widespread worldwide adoption that crosses borders and gets into the hands of individuals.  for it to be considered digital gold, however,  i already talked about how that requires cheap reliable dependable tx confirmations.  that is b/c Bitcoin is digital; it can't be held, weighed, shaped, coveted, etc.  all the normal tangible aspects that poor ppl covet or expect from physical gold.  

I agree.  I also like your example of the African kid who has to witness--with his own eyes--Bitcoin getting him the things he wants, before he'll ever be able to fathom that those digits on his phone are more valuable than the paper notes his father uses to purchase food from the market, or the little diamonds he once saw a man killed for.

We're not as smart as we think.  We need to see, touch, and experience something before we can really understand that thing.  You can't learn to ski by reading online tutorials--no matter how well you think you grok body mechanics and the laws of physics.  Similarly, the world will only understand bitcoin by getting out there and using it.    

thanks for that.  one slight correction above.  in order for that African kid to be willing to replace his desire and faith in gold he will need to be able to transact reliably, cheaply, and safely with Bitcoin.  we actually want all those kids to stop having or wanting to go down 3 ft wide holes 100 yd deep going after a hunk of metal.  now that would be grassroots and the ultimate in decentralization that no bank or gvt could ever shutdown.
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1596



View Profile
June 08, 2015, 02:34:30 AM
 #25952

If Satoshi had seen 1MB blocks as being absolutely critical to achieving the goals of the project, similar to the fixed distribution in terms of importance, why not act or write in a way that emphasized that? In fact, he acted and wrote as though the blocksize would absolutely be variable over the time vs technological capability curve. 

That's right, but 20 MB is way beyond the technological curve right now and for the next few years at least. It is premature.

Why did satoshi put the 1 MB cap in there in the first place? It was an "anti-spam" function, but why was it important to protect against this sort of spam?

Because the technological curve wasn't up to the task of operating a decentralized consensus system with >1 MB blocks and allowing spam beyond that point would be to allow a successful attack against the system. If it wasn't up to the task of >1 MB a few years ago, what makes anyone think it is up to the task of 20 MB now? It wasn't and it isn't.

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 08, 2015, 02:39:58 AM
 #25953

If Satoshi had seen 1MB blocks as being absolutely critical to achieving the goals of the project, similar to the fixed distribution in terms of importance, why not act or write in a way that emphasized that? In fact, he acted and wrote as though the blocksize would absolutely be variable over the time vs technological capability curve. 

That's right, but 20 MB is way beyond the technological curve right now and for the next few years at least. It is premature.

Why did satoshi put the 1 MB cap in there in the first place? It was an "anti-spam" function, but why was it important to protect against this sort of spam?

Because the technological curve wasn't up to the task of operating a decentralized consensus system with >1 MB blocks and allowing spam beyond that point would be to allow a successful attack against the system. If it wasn't up to the task of >1 MB a few years ago, what makes anyone think it is up to the task of 20 MB now? It wasn't and it isn't.



b/c i just debunked the main spam attack the Blockstream devs have been scaring everyone with:

Looks like Gavin's plan to get the miners to join his coup d'état is not going so great, lol

http://cointelegraph.com/news/114481/chinese-exchanges-reject-gavin-andresens-20-mb-block-size-increase

LOL, this quote just cut the legs out from Blockstream's main objection to raising the block limit; that being the large block attack  on small miners supposedly facilitated by "superior"  bandwidth connections. Well, the largest miners in the world are telling us they have "inferior"  connections! Lol! What a bunch of amateurs.

“A very large block size would be problematic for miners because the network bandwidth between China, where the majority of mining is done, and rest of the world is heavily restricted. Important proposals like these need to factor in all of the nuances of the global landscape.”
Zangelbert Bingledack
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1036


View Profile
June 08, 2015, 02:44:35 AM
 #25954

I think the woman trying to smuggle the bitcoins into Russia (in her ...) was the most interesting news I've seen for a while. How many other people are evading capital controls with brain wallets and not getting caught? How long until that becomes widespread?
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1596



View Profile
June 08, 2015, 02:46:11 AM
 #25955

If Satoshi had seen 1MB blocks as being absolutely critical to achieving the goals of the project, similar to the fixed distribution in terms of importance, why not act or write in a way that emphasized that? In fact, he acted and wrote as though the blocksize would absolutely be variable over the time vs technological capability curve. 

That's right, but 20 MB is way beyond the technological curve right now and for the next few years at least. It is premature.

Why did satoshi put the 1 MB cap in there in the first place? It was an "anti-spam" function, but why was it important to protect against this sort of spam?

Because the technological curve wasn't up to the task of operating a decentralized consensus system with >1 MB blocks and allowing spam beyond that point would be to allow a successful attack against the system. If it wasn't up to the task of >1 MB a few years ago, what makes anyone think it is up to the task of 20 MB now? It wasn't and it isn't.



b/c i just debunked the main spam attack the Blockstream devs have been scaring everyone with:

Looks like Gavin's plan to get the miners to join his coup d'état is not going so great, lol

http://cointelegraph.com/news/114481/chinese-exchanges-reject-gavin-andresens-20-mb-block-size-increase

LOL, this quote just cut the legs out from Blockstream's main objection to raising the block limit; that being the large block attack  on small miners supposedly facilitated by "superior"  bandwidth connections. Well, the largest miners in the world are telling us they have "inferior"  connections! Lol! What a bunch of amateurs.

“A very large block size would be problematic for miners because the network bandwidth between China, where the majority of mining is done, and rest of the world is heavily restricted. Important proposals like these need to factor in all of the nuances of the global landscape.”

Again you are missing the point. It isn't who are the largest miners today with 1 MB blocks, it is who would be the largest or only miners and node operators with 20 MB blocks.
Zangelbert Bingledack
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1036


View Profile
June 08, 2015, 02:46:17 AM
 #25956

b/c i just debunked the main spam attack the Blockstream devs have been scaring everyone with:

Looks like Gavin's plan to get the miners to join his coup d'état is not going so great, lol

http://cointelegraph.com/news/114481/chinese-exchanges-reject-gavin-andresens-20-mb-block-size-increase

LOL, this quote just cut the legs out from Blockstream's main objection to raising the block limit; that being the large block attack  on small miners supposedly facilitated by "superior"  bandwidth connections. Well, the largest miners in the world are telling us they have "inferior"  connections! Lol! What a bunch of amateurs.

“A very large block size would be problematic for miners because the network bandwidth between China, where the majority of mining is done, and rest of the world is heavily restricted. Important proposals like these need to factor in all of the nuances of the global landscape.”

They'll just switch to saying "well-connected miners will torment not-well-connected miners."
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 08, 2015, 02:52:24 AM
 #25957

If Satoshi had seen 1MB blocks as being absolutely critical to achieving the goals of the project, similar to the fixed distribution in terms of importance, why not act or write in a way that emphasized that? In fact, he acted and wrote as though the blocksize would absolutely be variable over the time vs technological capability curve. 

That's right, but 20 MB is way beyond the technological curve right now and for the next few years at least. It is premature.

Why did satoshi put the 1 MB cap in there in the first place? It was an "anti-spam" function, but why was it important to protect against this sort of spam?

Because the technological curve wasn't up to the task of operating a decentralized consensus system with >1 MB blocks and allowing spam beyond that point would be to allow a successful attack against the system. If it wasn't up to the task of >1 MB a few years ago, what makes anyone think it is up to the task of 20 MB now? It wasn't and it isn't.



b/c i just debunked the main spam attack the Blockstream devs have been scaring everyone with:

Looks like Gavin's plan to get the miners to join his coup d'état is not going so great, lol

http://cointelegraph.com/news/114481/chinese-exchanges-reject-gavin-andresens-20-mb-block-size-increase

LOL, this quote just cut the legs out from Blockstream's main objection to raising the block limit; that being the large block attack  on small miners supposedly facilitated by "superior"  bandwidth connections. Well, the largest miners in the world are telling us they have "inferior"  connections! Lol! What a bunch of amateurs.

“A very large block size would be problematic for miners because the network bandwidth between China, where the majority of mining is done, and rest of the world is heavily restricted. Important proposals like these need to factor in all of the nuances of the global landscape.”

Again you are missing the point. It isn't who are the largest miners today with 1 MB blocks, it is who would be the largest or only miners and node operators with 20 MB blocks.


and you're just creating FUD.

what evidence is there that there would be a shift in just who the large miners will be?  maybe there won't be any.  maybe there will be a shift so there are no large miners and everyone is equal.  what we do know now is that there won't be the immediate large miner, large block attack all you guys have been FUD'ing about.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 08, 2015, 02:58:06 AM
 #25958

If Satoshi had seen 1MB blocks as being absolutely critical to achieving the goals of the project, similar to the fixed distribution in terms of importance, why not act or write in a way that emphasized that? In fact, he acted and wrote as though the blocksize would absolutely be variable over the time vs technological capability curve. 

That's right, but 20 MB is way beyond the technological curve right now and for the next few years at least. It is premature.

Why did satoshi put the 1 MB cap in there in the first place? It was an "anti-spam" function, but why was it important to protect against this sort of spam?

Because the technological curve wasn't up to the task of operating a decentralized consensus system with >1 MB blocks and allowing spam beyond that point would be to allow a successful attack against the system. If it wasn't up to the task of >1 MB a few years ago, what makes anyone think it is up to the task of 20 MB now? It wasn't and it isn't.



b/c i just debunked the main spam attack the Blockstream devs have been scaring everyone with:

Looks like Gavin's plan to get the miners to join his coup d'état is not going so great, lol

http://cointelegraph.com/news/114481/chinese-exchanges-reject-gavin-andresens-20-mb-block-size-increase

LOL, this quote just cut the legs out from Blockstream's main objection to raising the block limit; that being the large block attack  on small miners supposedly facilitated by "superior"  bandwidth connections. Well, the largest miners in the world are telling us they have "inferior"  connections! Lol! What a bunch of amateurs.

“A very large block size would be problematic for miners because the network bandwidth between China, where the majority of mining is done, and rest of the world is heavily restricted. Important proposals like these need to factor in all of the nuances of the global landscape.”

Again you are missing the point. It isn't who are the largest miners today with 1 MB blocks, it is who would be the largest or only miners and node operators with 20 MB blocks.


and you know what?  from the beginning, even before we found out about the large Chinese miners, i said this is a highly dubious attack that any such large miner should want to perform.  large blocks do not change the fact that miners will want first and foremost the block reward and should only continue to form the smallest, most efficiently propagating blocks they can so as not to be orphaned.  an attacker still risks losing their entire hardware investment by destroying the system in which they participate.  i've contended that the blonde in the Governing Dynamics video from John Nash is equivalent to either the the selfish or 51% miner attack.  they won't do it b/c all miners want to get laid.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 08, 2015, 03:03:59 AM
 #25959

b/c i just debunked the main spam attack the Blockstream devs have been scaring everyone with:

Looks like Gavin's plan to get the miners to join his coup d'état is not going so great, lol

http://cointelegraph.com/news/114481/chinese-exchanges-reject-gavin-andresens-20-mb-block-size-increase

LOL, this quote just cut the legs out from Blockstream's main objection to raising the block limit; that being the large block attack  on small miners supposedly facilitated by "superior"  bandwidth connections. Well, the largest miners in the world are telling us they have "inferior"  connections! Lol! What a bunch of amateurs.

“A very large block size would be problematic for miners because the network bandwidth between China, where the majority of mining is done, and rest of the world is heavily restricted. Important proposals like these need to factor in all of the nuances of the global landscape.”

They'll just switch to saying "well-connected miners will torment not-well-connected miners."

so if better connections are no longer correlated with size, then the attack doesn't work b/c size was supposed to allow them to press their advantage in forming follow on blocks quickly before smaller miners could digest/process the large block attack.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 08, 2015, 03:25:38 AM
 #25960

notice how none of the Blockstream devs come in to the thread on Reddit, where we know they hang out, to challenge me on this.  i'm sure they were there b/c i got plenty of downvotes as a result of the post which you can see me laugh at in a follow up post underneath:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/38os22/chinese_exchanges_reject_gavin_andresens_20_mb/crwqxai
Pages: « 1 ... 1248 1249 1250 1251 1252 1253 1254 1255 1256 1257 1258 1259 1260 1261 1262 1263 1264 1265 1266 1267 1268 1269 1270 1271 1272 1273 1274 1275 1276 1277 1278 1279 1280 1281 1282 1283 1284 1285 1286 1287 1288 1289 1290 1291 1292 1293 1294 1295 1296 1297 [1298] 1299 1300 1301 1302 1303 1304 1305 1306 1307 1308 1309 1310 1311 1312 1313 1314 1315 1316 1317 1318 1319 1320 1321 1322 1323 1324 1325 1326 1327 1328 1329 1330 1331 1332 1333 1334 1335 1336 1337 1338 1339 1340 1341 1342 1343 1344 1345 1346 1347 1348 ... 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!