|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin addresses contain a checksum, so it is very unlikely that mistyping an address will cause you to lose money.
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
cypherdoc (OP)
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
|
 |
June 20, 2015, 11:59:13 PM |
|
New poll above.
please vote.
|
|
|
|
|
justusranvier
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1400
Merit: 1009
|
|
June 21, 2015, 12:02:12 AM |
|
It would be great if you'd be specific that the proposal is about increasing the block size limit, which is only indirectly and occasionally related to the actual size of mined blocks.
|
|
|
|
|
smooth
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2968
Merit: 1198
|
|
June 21, 2015, 12:03:21 AM |
|
I agree with him that the block size limit is an anti-spam feature and should be treated as such, but the question is why (for example) 20 MB of spam is considered acceptable now. I see no good reason to allow 20x as much spam, when little to nothing has been done to control spam in any other way. according to the new XT code today, the max would be 8MB, with doubling every 2y if 75% miners up-version. you'd have to believe, for all the same reasons we've argued against for yrs, that a large miner would be willing to risk paying 8MB worth of spam tx fees for a prolonged period of time to try for the fuzzy goal of driving smaller miners out of business over an unspecified period of time, which may never come, and which comes at great risk to themselves from orphaning. Not necessarily. It could be more of a gradual process of spam being accepted into a system that isn't well protected against spam. The miners who are better equipped to produce somewhat larger blocks produce them (by including lower value, lower fee transactions aka spam), which puts more of a strain on smaller miners who drop out. As smaller miners drop out, the average block size then increases, which puts even more strain on the slightly-less-small miners, who then drop out, repeating the process. The end result is larger spammier blocks, and less broad participation in mining. The fact remains that as I said there is no more of a mechanism to control spam other than a block size limit than there was when satoshi added the block limit, and I don't really see how spam is 20x8x less of a problem or potential problem now. I'd support a smaller increase though, since I do see technological progress as having reduced the threat of spam by a smaller factor. Longer term I see the 8 MB and auto doubling every two years as even worse than 20 MB. There is no rational basis to believe with high confidence that gigabyte blocks would be acceptable in 15 years. |
|
|
|
|
tvbcof
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4592
Merit: 1276
|
|
June 21, 2015, 12:37:59 AM |
|
New poll above.
please vote.
I updated my poll correspondingly. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1091654.0As they say in Chicago: "Vote early and vote often!" |
sig spam anywhere and self-moderated threads on the pol&soc board are for losers.
|
|
|
|
TPTB_need_war
|
|
June 21, 2015, 12:45:01 AM
Last edit: June 21, 2015, 01:50:19 AM by TPTB_need_war |
|
I hope the core Bitcoin devs are reading this, so they will get an idea of who in this thread is on their level. Someone should send this post to Blockstream, so they can see they win with huge blocks or with small blocks. It doesn't matter. The only future is pegged side chains (for those of you so dumb upthread to claim that pegged side chains don't matter  ). Excellent and timely post by Kondrad! Impressive--I recall he also posted a comprehensive article on sidechains, shortly after the Blockstream white paper was published. I was going to ask for a link to his analysis of side chains, until I read that myopic "analysis" on the block size limit. Challenged minds require 30 pages of obfuscation in eloquisms to avoid proceeding directly to the point, because they don't have a lucid generative essence map in their mind. Eloquisms
Posted by TheFascistMind on Mon 2 Nov 2009 - 13:17
Elegant or novel ways to say something.
Next time you do not understand something, try asking with inverted grammar to illustrate your point humorously...
"Yoda Master tells understands he you not, {something} can be
how, you clarify please asks he to."
The main and long-term salient reason transaction fees have much correlation to the number of confirmations is because different miners would have different costs and absent a block size limit the ones with lower costs would include transactions with lower fees. One implication is that to do fast micropayments on block chain (thus small nominal transaction fees), would be forced to a pegged side chain that excluded the diverse miners who are causing that variability — aka centralization. (The huge block variance that Cypherdolt pleads for will kill the decentralized micropayments goal he claims ) Also that author completely ignores the centralization impacts widely variable block sizes have on centralization due to bandwidth, propagation, orphan rate (or IBLT which is also centralization). In short this n00b and anyone who thought his anal-sis was "excellent" should STFU. Even if you argue the other possible outcome which is centralization of mining will be good for reducing variance of block sizes, you are still admitting the Bitcoin is headed for centralization of mining with larger block size limits by some means of squeezing out smaller miners. But I also acknowledge, even if you restricted the block size, you would end up with centralization, because the rising transaction fees would send transactions off chain (to centralized pegged side chains; or proprietary off chain, e.g. cartel of Coinbase, Paypal, etc). Thus as I wrote upthread, until someone invents a better model for the block chain which can scale, then centralization is inherent with scaling. Those who can’t build, talkOne of the side-effects of using Google+ is that I’m getting exposed to a kind of writing I usually avoid – ponderous divagations on how the Internet should be and the meaning of it all written by people who’ve never gotten their hands dirty actually making it work. No, I’m not talking about users – I don’t mind listening to those. I’m talking about punditry about the Internet, especially the kind full of grand prescriptive visions. The more I see of this, the more it irritates the crap out of me. But I’m not in the habit of writing in public about merely personal complaints; there’s a broader cultural problem here that needs to be aired.
The following rant will not name names. But if you are offended by it, you are probably meant to be.
I have been using the Internet since 1976. I got involved in its engineering in 1983. Over the years, I’ve influenced the design of the Domain Name System, written a widely-used SMTP transport, helped out with RFCs, and done time on IETF mailing lists. I’ve never been a major name in Internet engineering the way I have been post-1997 in the open-source movement, but I was a respectable minor contributor to the former long before I became famous in the latter. I know the people and the culture that gets the work done; they’re my peers and I am theirs. Which is why I’m going to switch from “them” to “us” and “we” now, and talk about something that really cranks us off.
We’re not thrilled by people who rave endlessly about the wonder of the net. We’re not impressed by brow-furrowing think-pieces about how it ought to written by people who aren’t doing the design and coding to make stuff work. We’d be far happier if pretty much everybody who has ever been described as ‘digerati’ were dropped in a deep hole where they can blabber at each other without inflicting their pompous vacuities on us or the rest of the world.
In our experience, generally the only non-engineers whose net-related speculations are worth listening to are science-fiction writers, and by no means all of those; anybody to whom the label “cyberpunk” has been attached usually deserves to be dropped in that deep hole along with the so-called digerati. We do respect the likes of John Brunner, Vernor Vinge, Neal Stephenson, and Charles Stross, and we’re occasionally inspired by them – but this just emphasizes what an uninspiring lot the non-fiction “serious thinkers” attaching themselves to the Internet usually are.
There are specific recurring kinds of errors in speculative writing about the Internet that we get exceedingly tired of seeing over and over again. One is blindness to problems of scale; another is handwaving about deployment costs; and a third is inability to notice when a proposed cooperative ‘solution’ is ruined by misalignment of incentives. There are others, but these will stand as representative for why we very seldom find any value in the writings of people who talk but don’t build.
We seldom complain about this in public because, really, how would it help? The world seems to be oversupplied with publishers willing to drop money on journalists, communications majors, lawyers, marketers manqué, and other glib riff-raff who have persuaded themselves that they have deep insights about the net. Beneath their verbal razzle-dazzle and coining of pointless neologisms it’s extremely uncommon for such people to think up anything true that hasn’t been old hat to us for decades, but we can’t see how to do anything to dampen the demand for their vaporous musings. So we just sigh and go back to work.
Yes, we have our own shining visions of the Internet future, and if you ask us we might well tell you about them. It’s even fair to say we have a broadly shared vision of that future; design principles like end-to-end, an allergy to systems with single-point failure modes, and a tradition of open source imply that much. But, with a limited exception during crisis periods imposed by external politics, we don’t normally make a lot of public noise about that vision. Because talk is cheap, and we believe we teach the vision best by making it live in what we design and deploy.
Here are some of the principles we live by: An ounce of technical specification beats a pound of manifesto. The superior man underpromises and overperforms. Mechanism outlasts policy. If a picture is worth a thousand words, a pilot deployment is worth a million. The future belongs to those who show up to build it. Shut up and show us the code.
If you can live by these principles too, roll up your sleeves and join us; there’s plenty of work to be done. Otherwise, do everybody a favor and stop with the writing and the speeches. You aren’t special, you aren’t precious, and you aren’t helping.
I agree with him that the block size limit is an anti-spam feature and should be treated as such, but the question is why (for example) 20 MB of spam is considered acceptable now. I see no good reason to allow 20x as much spam, when little to nothing has been done to control spam in any other way.
That is closer to a correct view, but still myopic. Not necessarily. It could be more of a gradual process of spam being accepted into a system that isn't well protected against spam. The miners who are better equipped to produce somewhat larger blocks produce them (by including lower value, lower fee transactions aka spam), which puts more of a strain on smaller miners who drop out. As smaller miners drop out, the average block size then increases, which puts even more strain on the slightly-less-small miners, who then drop out, repeating the process.
The end result is larger spammier blocks, and less broad participation in mining.
The fact remains that as I said there is no more of a mechanism to control spam other than a block size limit than there was when satoshi added the block limit, and I don't really see how spam is 20x8x less of a problem or potential problem now. I'd support a smaller increase though, since I do see technological progress as having reduced the threat of spam by a smaller factor.
Longer term I see the 8 MB and auto doubling every two years as even worse than 20 MB. There is no rational basis to believe with high confidence that gigabyte blocks would be acceptable in 15 years.
Even closer, but still it is not just a "spam" issue. |
|
|
|
|
nicked
|
|
June 21, 2015, 12:58:42 AM |
|
Excellent and timely post by Kondrad! Impressive. +1 |
|
|
|
|
|
TPTB_need_war
|
|
June 21, 2015, 01:31:31 AM |
|
I think you are making a catastrophic mistake to ignore them. I hope your view doesn't represent Monero's position?
Nobody is ignoring them. I just think they won't really have much relevance, or if they do they will destabilize the greater Bitcoin system. But I doubt the latter because the obstacles of relying on far weaker security such as merged mining, ... You continue to assume that merged mining is necessary and I don't make that assumption because I know something which hasn't been revealed to you yet. Even without my secrets, there are other ways to do consensus that can't be 50% attacked. 1) PoS 2) A cartel of trusted servers such as Coinbase, Paypal, Facebook, Circle, Bitpay, etc.. Maybe not trusted by you, but trusted by the masses who use their services and don't give a fuck how it is done technically. ...along with giving up most of Bitcoin's network effect, are simply too great. The vast majority will just stick with vanilla Bitcoin, which will force the rest to do the same.
What network effects are lost when the pegged side chain is denominated in BTC and can be spent back to the Bitcoin Core blockchain at any time? Long-term divergence of BTC value for pegged chains that deviate from the 1-to-1 peg doesn't matter in the short-term wherein stampedes of change take place, e.g have you never heard of fractional reserve banking and how the masses trust it to be fully backed? The masses will stick with Coinbase, Circle, etc and the decision will be made for them. Also there are certain features you can't get in Core, such as anonymity that are really needed. And if the controlling group of a new altcoin needed to store $10 million from an ICO in an anonymous unit, do you think it would be wise for the controlling group to store it in XMR which has insufficient liquidity and higher volatility? What if you XMR whales sell as that group is buying? Much better to put BTC peg on side chain and store the ICO proceeds there. I been trying to convince you core Monero devs to make the anonymity more reliable, and so some ICO funds could be stored in XMR but I can't tell if you guys are rushing to fix the anonymity or not. Monero is a piece of software and doesn't have a position, but if against all odds sidechains become widely used the equivalent functionality will likely be added to Monero, and then Bitcoin can become a sidechain to Monero (no, I'm not kidding).
You are delusional. Monero has one chance. Make it a pegged BTC side chain or go extinct. I am trying to help you. |
|
|
|
smooth
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2968
Merit: 1198
|
|
June 21, 2015, 01:43:02 AM |
|
You continue to assume that merged mining is necessary and I don't make that assumption because I know something which hasn't been revealed to you yet. Even without my secrets, there are other ways to do consensus that can't be 50% attacked.
1) PoS
2) A cartel of trusted servers such as Coinbase, Paypal, Facebook, Circle, Bitpay, etc.. Maybe not trusted by you, but trusted by the masses who use their services and don't give a fuck how it is done technically.
I find 1 and 2 uninteresting. If you want to recreate a centralized banking system using inferior technology, go right ahead. I have no doubt the masses will like that though, since they like centralized banking just fine. Of the methods proposed by Blockstream, merged mining is the only one that is conceivably decentralized, except that it isn't either. If you have a third way you aren't disclosing, we can't discuss it, so it is pointless to keep bringing it up. Vaporware is also uninteresting. What network effects are lost when the pegged side chain is denominated in BTC and can be spent back to the Bitcoin Core blockchain at any time? They can't. They can only be spent to a recipient on the same chain, or by using a redeem transaction (very slow and expensive), or by way of a cross-chain swap, which adds a third party intermediary (someone who wants sidechain coins at the same instant that you want main chain coins). That added complexity and cost will discourage moving coins to a sidechain in the first place, especially for casual use, and especially if there is ever more than one side chain (many people all picking different chains just adds even more overhead to all of them and is even more likely to be nonsense in practice) From a usability point of view (ignoring differences in the strength of the pegging mechanism itself), this is equivalent to the various coins that are currently pegged/deonominated in USD. They have zero network effect with USD or with each other, and are mostly if not entirely all useless. Make it a pegged BTC side chain or go extinct. In the long run we're all dead. In the short run, pegged sidechains don't even exist. In the middle, we'll see. |
|
|
|
|
|
TPTB_need_war
|
|
June 21, 2015, 02:00:55 AM |
|
You continue to assume that merged mining is necessary and I don't make that assumption because I know something which hasn't been revealed to you yet. Even without my secrets, there are other ways to do consensus that can't be 50% attacked.
1) PoS
2) A cartel of trusted servers such as Coinbase, Paypal, Facebook, Circle, Bitpay, etc.. Maybe not trusted by you, but trusted by the masses who use their services and don't give a fuck how it is done technically.
I find 1 and 2 uninteresting. If you want to recreate a centralized banking system using inferior technology, go right ahead. I have no doubt the masses will like that though, since they like centralized banking just fine. You are missing the most salient point. The difference is it is pegged to BTC thus free to access all of Bitcoin's network effects AND speculation fever. So there is a carrot that isn't available in a fiat bank account. Wow smooth it is like you suddenly lost your former astute self. <joke>You been smoking pot again?</joke> (seriously I have no idea if smooth has ever inhaled, lol) Of the methods proposed by Blockstream, merged mining is the only one that is conceivably decentralized, except that it isn't either.
If you have a third way you aren't disclosing, we can't discuss it, so it is pointless to keep bringing it up. Vaporware is also uninteresting.
Vaporware is quite interesting to those designing and investing in it. I have reason to believe they are lurking. What network effects are lost when the pegged side chain is denominated in BTC and can be spent back to the Bitcoin Core blockchain at any time?
They can't. They can only be spent to a recipient on the same chain, or by using a redeem transaction (very slow and expensive), or by way of a cross-chain swap, which adds a third party intermediary (someone who wants sidechain coins at the same instant that you want main chain coins). Sounds like all the bases are covered then. I think you've made no point. Sounds like normal finance to me, e.g. using a credit card instead of cash. Who said Core will have the most transaction volume? There is tension in Core between TPS and scaling. That entropy has to go some where. That added complexity and cost will discourage moving coins to a sidechain in the first place, especially for casual use, and especially if there is ever more than one side chain (many people all picking different chains just adds even more overhead to all of them and is even more likely to be nonsense in practice)
I don't see any substantiation of this FUD. For one, a few dominant side chains might emerge. Secondly don't underestimate the desire of finance for leverage and gaming opportunities. (ignoring differences in the strength of the pegging mechanism itself)
We wouldn't be discussing the same thing any more. Make it a pegged BTC side chain or go extinct.
In the long run we're all dead. In the short run, pegged sidechains don't even exist. In the middle, we'll see. Those with vision get an early mover advantage. Btw, I heard that is why only in the Philippines are the police the first ones on the crime scene and in fact rumor is they are so prescient they are on the scene before the crime is committed.  |
|
|
|
cypherdoc (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
|
|
June 21, 2015, 02:01:48 AM |
|
I agree with him that the block size limit is an anti-spam feature and should be treated as such, but the question is why (for example) 20 MB of spam is considered acceptable now. I see no good reason to allow 20x as much spam, when little to nothing has been done to control spam in any other way. according to the new XT code today, the max would be 8MB, with doubling every 2y if 75% miners up-version. you'd have to believe, for all the same reasons we've argued against for yrs, that a large miner would be willing to risk paying 8MB worth of spam tx fees for a prolonged period of time to try for the fuzzy goal of driving smaller miners out of business over an unspecified period of time, which may never come, and which comes at great risk to themselves from orphaning. Not necessarily. It could be more of a gradual process of spam being accepted into a system that isn't well protected against spam. The miners who are better equipped to produce somewhat larger blocks produce them (by including lower value, lower fee transactions aka spam), which puts more of a strain on smaller miners who drop out. As smaller miners drop out, the average block size then increases, which puts even more strain on the slightly-less-small miners, who then drop out, repeating the process. The end result is larger spammier blocks, and less broad participation in mining. The fact remains that as I said there is no more of a mechanism to control spam other than a block size limit than there was when satoshi added the block limit, and I don't really see how spam is 20x8x less of a problem or potential problem now. I'd support a smaller increase though, since I do see technological progress as having reduced the threat of spam by a smaller factor. Longer term I see the 8 MB and auto doubling every two years as even worse than 20 MB. There is no rational basis to believe with high confidence that gigabyte blocks would be acceptable in 15 years. if you are not claiming any relative connectivity advantage of a large vs small miner, why does a large block filled with spam cause a small miner to choke anymore than another large miner? and if ANY miner, large or small, receives a large block that requires extra processing time, he can immediately resort to the defensive mechanism of hashing an empty block header until he finishes processing the large block. then he goes back to hashing a normal block with tx's. we saw this exact behavior in the Stress Test. |
|
|
|
|
tvbcof
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4592
Merit: 1276
|
|
June 21, 2015, 02:06:07 AM |
|
What network effects are lost when the pegged side chain is denominated in BTC and can be spent back to the Bitcoin Core blockchain at any time? They can't. They can only be spent to a recipient on the same chain, or by using a redeem transaction (very slow and expensive), or by way of a cross-chain swap, which adds a third party intermediary (someone who wants sidechain coins at the same instant that you want main chain coins). That added complexity and cost will discourage moving coins to a sidechain in the first place, especially for casual use, and especially if there is ever more than one side chain (many people all picking different chains just adds even more overhead to all of them and is even more likely to be nonsense in practice) From a usability point of view (ignoring differences in the strength of the pegging mechanism itself), this is equivalent to the various coins that are currently pegged/deonominated in USD. They have zero network effect with USD or with each other, and are mostly if not entirely all useless. All hogwash. Firstly the 'slowness' is exactly what appeals to me for critical and high value transactions. Something burried several days into a blockchain gives me great confidence. And most attacks on the blockchain will be discovered by that time making it exceedingly unlikely that I'll be suckered by a transaction failure. Secondly, two days is hardly 'slow' by the standards of the modern finanicail system, especially when high-value and complex transactions are involved. Thirdly, taking a position in a sidecoin is as easy as doing any other Bitcoin transaction and would be something I would do irregularly. e.g., I might buy a years worth of micro-tip sidecoins. It's hardly a disaster to wait a few days for such a transaction. People who are so impatient or hand-to-mouth indigent that this is an actual problem don't really need a high-powered system like Bitcoin and should just choose a sidechain which is designed to meet their needs better. Fourthly, if I can go directly sidecoin to sidecoin, fantastic. It both saves me the fees which _should_ be associated with a transaction as powerful as a (well distributed) Bitcoin network one, and it saves load on the backing network as well. win/win. Fifthly, computers are really good at hiding the 'complexity' of going between sidechains, and you can see the tools that the Blockstream guys are working on are designed to make most of it risk free to the user. All kinds of intermediary exchanges will pop up to make things trivial for the unsophisticated userbase. With a decent set of tools these outfits will have a difficult time ripping people off and hiding their activities (unless for some reason they wish to and that is a good tip-off to stay away from them.) |
sig spam anywhere and self-moderated threads on the pol&soc board are for losers.
|
|
|
smooth
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2968
Merit: 1198
|
|
June 21, 2015, 02:16:38 AM |
|
I agree with him that the block size limit is an anti-spam feature and should be treated as such, but the question is why (for example) 20 MB of spam is considered acceptable now. I see no good reason to allow 20x as much spam, when little to nothing has been done to control spam in any other way. according to the new XT code today, the max would be 8MB, with doubling every 2y if 75% miners up-version. you'd have to believe, for all the same reasons we've argued against for yrs, that a large miner would be willing to risk paying 8MB worth of spam tx fees for a prolonged period of time to try for the fuzzy goal of driving smaller miners out of business over an unspecified period of time, which may never come, and which comes at great risk to themselves from orphaning. Not necessarily. It could be more of a gradual process of spam being accepted into a system that isn't well protected against spam. The miners who are better equipped to produce somewhat larger blocks produce them (by including lower value, lower fee transactions aka spam), which puts more of a strain on smaller miners who drop out. As smaller miners drop out, the average block size then increases, which puts even more strain on the slightly-less-small miners, who then drop out, repeating the process. The end result is larger spammier blocks, and less broad participation in mining. The fact remains that as I said there is no more of a mechanism to control spam other than a block size limit than there was when satoshi added the block limit, and I don't really see how spam is 20x8x less of a problem or potential problem now. I'd support a smaller increase though, since I do see technological progress as having reduced the threat of spam by a smaller factor. Longer term I see the 8 MB and auto doubling every two years as even worse than 20 MB. There is no rational basis to believe with high confidence that gigabyte blocks would be acceptable in 15 years. if you are not claiming any relative connectivity advantage of a large vs small miner, why does a large block filled with spam cause a small miner to choke anymore than another large miner? and if ANY miner, large or small, receives a large block that requires extra processing time, he can immediately resort to the defensive mechanism of hashing an empty block header until he finishes processing the large block. then he goes back to hashing a normal block with tx's. we saw this exact behavior in the Stress Test. The issue is not necessarily large or small as much as it is connectivity to a majority or near-majority of the hash rate. tvbcof, I agree with you that two days isn't out of the question for critical and high-value transactions, but Bitcoin main chain handles those perfectly well too, without the added cost and delay, and without security compromises. The competitive advantage of involving a sidechain specifically for critical or high value transactions is nil or negative. |
|
|
|
|
cypherdoc (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
|
|
June 21, 2015, 02:17:07 AM |
|
we know Larry Summers likes Bitcoin. here's his take on the impending Greek crisis: Make no mistake about the consequences of a breakdown. With an end to European support and consequent bank closures and credit problems, austerity will get far worse in Greece than it is today, and Greece will likely become a failed state, to the great detriment of all its people and their leadership. Once Greece fails as a state, Europe will collect far less debt repayment than it would with an orderly restructuring. And a massive northern out-migration of Greeks will strain national budgets throughout Europe, not to mention the challenges that will come as Russia achieves a presence in Greece. The IMF is looking at by far the largest nonpayment by a borrower in its history.
That means acknowledging that the vast majority of the financial support given to Greece has gone to pay back banks rather than to support the Greek budget. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-consequences-of-greeces-impending-breakdown/2015/06/20/9a4ab5d8-174d-11e5-89f3-61410da94eb1_story.html?postshare=4971434819123959 |
|
|
|
|
cypherdoc (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
|
|
June 21, 2015, 02:20:26 AM |
|
I agree with him that the block size limit is an anti-spam feature and should be treated as such, but the question is why (for example) 20 MB of spam is considered acceptable now. I see no good reason to allow 20x as much spam, when little to nothing has been done to control spam in any other way. according to the new XT code today, the max would be 8MB, with doubling every 2y if 75% miners up-version. you'd have to believe, for all the same reasons we've argued against for yrs, that a large miner would be willing to risk paying 8MB worth of spam tx fees for a prolonged period of time to try for the fuzzy goal of driving smaller miners out of business over an unspecified period of time, which may never come, and which comes at great risk to themselves from orphaning. Not necessarily. It could be more of a gradual process of spam being accepted into a system that isn't well protected against spam. The miners who are better equipped to produce somewhat larger blocks produce them (by including lower value, lower fee transactions aka spam), which puts more of a strain on smaller miners who drop out. As smaller miners drop out, the average block size then increases, which puts even more strain on the slightly-less-small miners, who then drop out, repeating the process. The end result is larger spammier blocks, and less broad participation in mining. The fact remains that as I said there is no more of a mechanism to control spam other than a block size limit than there was when satoshi added the block limit, and I don't really see how spam is 20x8x less of a problem or potential problem now. I'd support a smaller increase though, since I do see technological progress as having reduced the threat of spam by a smaller factor. Longer term I see the 8 MB and auto doubling every two years as even worse than 20 MB. There is no rational basis to believe with high confidence that gigabyte blocks would be acceptable in 15 years. if you are not claiming any relative connectivity advantage of a large vs small miner, why does a large block filled with spam cause a small miner to choke anymore than another large miner? and if ANY miner, large or small, receives a large block that requires extra processing time, he can immediately resort to the defensive mechanism of hashing an empty block header until he finishes processing the large block. then he goes back to hashing a normal block with tx's. we saw this exact behavior in the Stress Test. The issue is not necessarily large or small as much as it is connectivity to a majority or near-majority of the hash rate. yeah, but as stated by the Chinese miners, they don't have superior connectivity. in fact, it's lower connectivity. thus, how can these largest 5 miners of all be a problem to small miners?
tvbcof, I agree with you that two days isn't out of the question for critical and high-value transactions, but Bitcoin main chain handles those perfectly well too, without the added cost and delay, and without security compromises. The competitive advantage of involving a sidechain specifically for critical or high value transactions is nil or negative.
tvbcof is being brash about 2d tie ups. that would be a catastrophic loss of his coins in a SC failure. he'd never get his scBTC mined back to BTC. |
|
|
|
|
|
TPTB_need_war
|
|
June 21, 2015, 02:29:54 AM |
|
tvbcof is being brash about 2d tie ups. that would be a catastrophic loss of his coins in a SC failure. he'd never get his scBTC mined back to BTC.
FUD. we know Larry Summers...
...take on the impending Greek crisis
gatekeepers (u+he) |
|
|
|
smooth
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2968
Merit: 1198
|
|
June 21, 2015, 02:31:36 AM |
|
yeah, but as stated by the Chinese miners, they don't have superior connectivity. in fact, it's lower connectivity. thus, how can these largest 5 miners of all be a problem to small miners?
I'm not going to comment on the specifics of some Chinese miners and what connectivity they specifically have, between each other and with miners outside China. I also don't think it matters much and find it hard to believe you think that matters. In a year or a few years the network might look entirely different. But there will still always be a range of connectivity (and other resources for that matter) available to miners. That is the more important issue. The term "anti-spam" means exactly preventing abusers from submitting more volume of activity into the system as a whole than the system as a whole can handle. That "system as a whole" includes a large (ideally decentralized) network that exists over a wide range of geographic, economic, and technological constraints. Again I fail to see what improvements have been made in ability of the system to absorb spam, aside from relatively modest improvements in the underlying bandwidth, storage, etc., since 1 MB that would justify an 8x or 20x increase in that limit. |
|
|
|
|
|
TPTB_need_war
|
|
June 21, 2015, 02:33:45 AM |
|
tvbcof, I agree with you that two days isn't out of the question for critical and high-value transactions, but Bitcoin main chain handles those perfectly well too, without the added cost and delay, and without security compromises. The competitive advantage of involving a sidechain specifically for critical or high value transactions is nil or negative.
Cripes smooth wtf happened to you? Has the real smooth been kidnapped? Er. Anonymity? Hiding the value of that transaction with Blockstream's C.T.? |
|
|
|
cypherdoc (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
|
|
June 21, 2015, 02:47:09 AM |
|
yeah, but as stated by the Chinese miners, they don't have superior connectivity. in fact, it's lower connectivity. thus, how can these largest 5 miners of all be a problem to small miners?
I'm not going to comment on the specifics of some Chinese miners and what connectivity they specifically have, between each other and with miners outside China. I also don't think it matters much and find it hard to believe you think that matters. In a year or a few years the network might look entirely different. But there will still always be a range of connectivity (and other resources for that matter) available to miners. That is the more important issue. actually, i'm not the one who brought up the attack initially. it was the 1MB'ers obsessing about yet another theoretical attack that has now been debunked.
The term "anti-spam" means exactly preventing abusers from submitting more volume of activity into the system as a whole than the system as a whole can handle. That "system as a whole" includes a large (ideally decentralized) network that exists over a wide range of geographic, economic, and technological constraints. Again I fail to see what improvements have been made in ability of the system to absorb spam, aside from relatively modest improvements in the underlying bandwidth, storage, etc., since 1 MB that would justify an 8x or 20x increase in that limit.
5 yr after 1MB, the network is much bigger, stronger, and more resilient. one can always obsess about these theoretical problems but the fact is that Bitcoin hasn't been broken and hasn't been attacked. there are quite a few network experts who've agreed with Gavin that scaling shouldn't be a problem. of course, the proof is in the pudding. |
|
|
|
|
smooth
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2968
Merit: 1198
|
|
June 21, 2015, 02:47:43 AM |
|
tvbcof, I agree with you that two days isn't out of the question for critical and high-value transactions, but Bitcoin main chain handles those perfectly well too, without the added cost and delay, and without security compromises. The competitive advantage of involving a sidechain specifically for critical or high value transactions is nil or negative.
Cripes smooth wtf happened to you? Has the real smooth been kidnapped? Er. Anonymity? Hiding the value of that transaction with Blockstream's C.T.? I've never been sold on that until and unless a sidechain becomes so popular that cypherdoc's fear of all the value being sucked out of the main chain and decoupling is realized, which makes the new chain just a replacement for Bitcoin, and again side chains don't continue to exist in a meaningful sense. (And obviously in that case my objection to failing to share Bitcoin's network effect doesn't exist either.) In order to make that critical high-value transaction you are going to have to move a high volume of BTC to the sidechain, then perform the tranasction, then move the high-value back. Both sides of that will be not only visible but highly conspicuous on the Bitcoin blockchain. Neither you nor the recipient is likely to want to keep your high-value on a side chain for an indefinite period of time with worse security. |
|
|
|
|
|
Poll
