Bitcoin Forum
December 05, 2016, 08:50:31 PM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   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 ... 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 1349 1350 1351 [1352] 1353 1354 1355 1356 1357 1358 1359 1360 1361 1362 1363 1364 1365 1366 1367 1368 1369 1370 1371 1372 1373 1374 1375 1376 1377 1378 1379 1380 1381 1382 1383 1384 1385 1386 1387 1388 1389 1390 1391 1392 1393 1394 1395 1396 1397 1398 1399 1400 1401 1402 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1804761 times)
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 21, 2015, 04:02:44 PM
 #27021

clearly Adam considers Matonis key in this debate.  i didn't know this until this am and his rant. currently, Matonis doesn't get it.  since Adam follows me on Twitter, i'm sure he was very concerned with my convo with Matonis yesterday.  i'm surprised he didn't intervene:

https://twitter.com/KonradSGraf/status/612347123732992000

https://twitter.com/jonmatonis/status/612353958326054912

https://twitter.com/jonmatonis/status/611899668813910016
1480971031
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480971031

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480971031
Reply with quote  #2

1480971031
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1480971031
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480971031

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480971031
Reply with quote  #2

1480971031
Report to moderator
Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714



View Profile
June 21, 2015, 04:24:50 PM
 #27022

There is a nonzero cost to adding a transaction to the blockchain, and there is a nonzero benefit to making a transaction - perfect for a market.
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1974


View Profile
June 21, 2015, 04:52:39 PM
 #27023


Get this guy a 'tute' so he can get XT up and running:




cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 21, 2015, 04:57:04 PM
 #27024

There is a nonzero cost to adding a transaction to the blockchain, and there is a nonzero benefit to making a transaction - perfect for a market.


that is so simplistic that it's profound.

thank you.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 21, 2015, 05:01:03 PM
 #27025

oh Lordy, now i'm having to educate TBI on digital gold:

https://twitter.com/twobitidiot/status/612652436126363648
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 938



View Profile
June 21, 2015, 05:31:45 PM
 #27026

Here is a link to the Reddit post with the final graphic visualizing Gavin's recent code changes.  



I incorporated all the proposed improvements except adding notes on IBLTs and pruning.  I thought that discussion deserved a separate graphic.  

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

Activity: 1064



View Profile
June 21, 2015, 05:35:20 PM
 #27027


Wouldn't IBLT drastically reduce the upload bit rate requirement for miners? 

Yes, It can drastically reduce the upload in case the other side is also full node.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 21, 2015, 05:43:41 PM
 #27028

this is going to drive Adam, et al bonkers:

BITCOIN BLOCK SIZE CONFLICT ENDS WITH LATEST UPDATE


An issue that has been the source for months of debate and rancor throughout the Bitcoin mining and developer community over Bitcoin's block size appears to have reached a long-awaited resolution. Within the most recent BitcoinXT update, Gavin Andresen has begun the process of revising the block chain individual block size from 1 MB to 8 MB starting next year. This is deemed necessary for the overall growth and usability of Bitcoin, as the current limits of seven transactions per second are becoming insufficient for the growing global community as consumer and business interest increases.

These impending updates were revealed on GitHub, and this is what is in store for the upcoming “hard fork”, taken directly from GitHub, posted by Gavin Andresen:

Implement hard fork to allow bigger blocks. Unit test and code for a bigger block hard fork.

Parameters are:

8MB cap
Doubling every two years (so 16MB in 2018)
For twenty years
Earliest possible chain fork: 11 Jan 2016
After miner supermajority (code in the next patch)
And grace period once miner supermajority achieved (code in next patch)
The 1 MB block size debate has been a constant issue for months, with Andresen and Mike Hearn discussing the need to upgrade the block size to as much as 20 MB. China's major exchanges and mining interests came out against any block size changes initially, deriding the extra operating costs and complexities involved with mostly empty blocks. After further review, the increase was deemed warranted to an 8 MB size, much smaller than the 20 MB requests by the Core Developers. An accord was reached, and the revisions will take effect next year.

We attempted to contact Hearn and Andresen for more information and will provide updated information as it becomes available. It seems some details are still to be sorted out in the next coding batch within the coming days. We’ll keep our readers informed of any further developments.

https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/bitcoin-block-size-conflict-ends-latest-update/
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
June 21, 2015, 05:56:28 PM
 #27029

this is going to drive Adam, et al bonkers:

BITCOIN BLOCK SIZE CONFLICT ENDS WITH LATEST UPDATE


An issue that has been the source for months of debate and rancor throughout the Bitcoin mining and developer community over Bitcoin's block size appears to have reached a long-awaited resolution. Within the most recent BitcoinXT update, Gavin Andresen has begun the process of revising the block chain individual block size from 1 MB to 8 MB starting next year. This is deemed necessary for the overall growth and usability of Bitcoin, as the current limits of seven transactions per second are becoming insufficient for the growing global community as consumer and business interest increases.

These impending updates were revealed on GitHub, and this is what is in store for the upcoming “hard fork”, taken directly from GitHub, posted by Gavin Andresen:

Implement hard fork to allow bigger blocks. Unit test and code for a bigger block hard fork.

Parameters are:

8MB cap
Doubling every two years (so 16MB in 2018)
For twenty years
Earliest possible chain fork: 11 Jan 2016
After miner supermajority (code in the next patch)
And grace period once miner supermajority achieved (code in next patch)
The 1 MB block size debate has been a constant issue for months, with Andresen and Mike Hearn discussing the need to upgrade the block size to as much as 20 MB. China's major exchanges and mining interests came out against any block size changes initially, deriding the extra operating costs and complexities involved with mostly empty blocks. After further review, the increase was deemed warranted to an 8 MB size, much smaller than the 20 MB requests by the Core Developers. An accord was reached, and the revisions will take effect next year.

We attempted to contact Hearn and Andresen for more information and will provide updated information as it becomes available. It seems some details are still to be sorted out in the next coding batch within the coming days. We’ll keep our readers informed of any further developments.

https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/bitcoin-block-size-conflict-ends-latest-update/


It is not yet consensus. We will see in January.
kazuki49
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 350



View Profile
June 21, 2015, 06:04:33 PM
 #27030

Similarly, because 95% has been mined, I am not so sure that people will use bitcoin over an altcoin as a means of p2p transfer. It's supply in 2024 will be far too small to facilitate hundreds of million of people buying in to actually use it. Because by 2024, either the legacy rail has taken over and bitcoin is far too expensive relative to it's supply OR, it will not have happened and bitcoin will be worth nothing. Perhaps this is too simplistic an argument to make, but 10 years is not actually very long.

It didnt use to concern me, but it does now.

It concerns you because you think outside the myopic delusional bubble that is bitcointalk and /r/bitcoin, and thats exactly the reason Monero or other more suited and permanently disinflationary coin for p2p payment will eventually take over, you cant force people into one (public, transparent, NSA-stamped) blockchain.
smith coins
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 504


ledgerwallet.com/r/f621


View Profile
June 21, 2015, 06:06:09 PM
 #27031

This is the right time to buy, after this downtrend period we are about to rise and reach again the $300 value.

Lisk.
    Develop Decentralized Applications & Sidechains in JavaScript with Lisk!
    Website | Blog | BTT Thread | Chat - Be part of the decentralized application movement!
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1974


View Profile
June 21, 2015, 06:12:48 PM
 #27032


Yes, you are right. But solex is presenting IBTL like it reduces bandwidth to 1/32

That's probably a misunderstanding. He said: "Obviously the real-time unconfirmed transaction overhead does remain. and is large long-term.".

Solex seems to have been envisioning IBLT's to be akin to how RAID obtains 'magic' results by use of parity bits.  He would be wrong about this...but...

...actually a Merkle tree structure offers the ability to do some pretty significant optimizations and 'magic'.  If, for instance, a branch can be cut off because it contains some taint, all of the twigs and leaves beyond it are irrelevant.  Pruning could be arbitrarily effective at discriminating and reducing bandwidth depending on the taint ratio.  1/32 is hardly inconceivable and it could be much more.

The key element if IBLT would be a structured ordering of transactions within a block.  My personal feeling is that this is like the difference in handling ability between water in liquid form and water in solid form.  An ice cube is much more flexible to transport, and much easier to match to a mold (e.g., an identifiable ice tray configuration), but it is also more brittle.  An ice cube is also much easier to catch in a strainer than it's liquid counterpart.


cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 21, 2015, 06:16:49 PM
 #27033


Yes, you are right. But solex is presenting IBTL like it reduces bandwidth to 1/32

That's probably a misunderstanding. He said: "Obviously the real-time unconfirmed transaction overhead does remain. and is large long-term.".

Solex seems to have been envisioning IBLT's to be akin to how RAID obtains 'magic' results by use of parity bits.  He would be wrong about this...but...

...actually a Merkle tree structure offers the ability to do some pretty significant optimizations and 'magic'.  If, for instance, a branch can be cut off because it contains some taint, all of the twigs and leaves beyond it are irrelevant.  Pruning could be arbitrarily effective at discriminating and reducing bandwidth depending on the taint ratio.  1/32 is hardly inconceivable and it could be much more.

The key element if IBLT would be a structured ordering of transactions within a block My personal feeling is that this is like the difference in handling ability between water in liquid form and water in solid form.  An ice cube is much more flexible to transport, and much easier to match to a mold (e.g., an identifiable ice tray configuration), but it is also more brittle.  An ice cube is also much easier to catch in a strainer than it's liquid counterpart.



that is the intent.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 21, 2015, 06:19:01 PM
 #27034

This is the right time to buy, after this downtrend period we are about to rise and reach again the $300 value.

i fully agree.

if Bitcoin were to have failed, it would have done it by now.  instead, what XT is going to offer is hope for Bitcoin's long awaited and promised growth.  as this percolates thru the mkt place, we will reverse the 90% downtrend and start to climb probably accelerating thru next July's block halving.  i'm hoping for the next 10x ramp as we've seen several times in past years.
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1974


View Profile
June 21, 2015, 06:21:59 PM
 #27035

...
The key element if IBLT would be a structured ordering of transactions within a block My personal feeling is that this is like the difference in handling ability between water in liquid form and water in solid form.  An ice cube is much more flexible to transport, and much easier to match to a mold (e.g., an identifiable ice tray configuration), but it is also more brittle.  An ice cube is also much easier to catch in a strainer than it's liquid counterpart.

that is the intent.

Of course.  It vastly expands the attack surface.


cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 21, 2015, 06:27:43 PM
 #27036

...
The key element if IBLT would be a structured ordering of transactions within a block My personal feeling is that this is like the difference in handling ability between water in liquid form and water in solid form.  An ice cube is much more flexible to transport, and much easier to match to a mold (e.g., an identifiable ice tray configuration), but it is also more brittle.  An ice cube is also much easier to catch in a strainer than it's liquid counterpart.

that is the intent.

Of course.  It vastly expands the attack surface.



perhaps.  then a different solution will be made.  key thing about Bitcoin is that there are legions of smart, talented ppl working on it now with even more to come.  if we can surgically dissect out the financially conflicted cancer, then core dev can advance in a healthy manner.  Bitcoin has evolved to that of a public good.  we should want that dissection to occur.
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
June 21, 2015, 06:33:36 PM
 #27037

...
The key element if IBLT would be a structured ordering of transactions within a block. My personal feeling is that this is like the difference in handling ability between water in liquid form and water in solid form.  An ice cube is much more flexible to transport, and much easier to match to a mold (e.g., an identifiable ice tray configuration), but it is also more brittle.  An ice cube is also much easier to catch in a strainer than it's liquid counterpart.

that is the intent.

Of course.  It vastly expands the attack surface.



perhaps.  then a different solution will be made.  key thing about Bitcoin is that there are legions of smart, talented ppl working on it now with even more to come.  if we can surgically dissect out the financially conflicted cancer, then core dev can advance in a healthy manner.  Bitcoin has evolved to that of a public good.  we should want that dissection to occur.

Doubling block size every 2 years is cancer.
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1974


View Profile
June 21, 2015, 06:43:54 PM
 #27038


perhaps.  then a different solution will be made.  key thing about Bitcoin is that there are legions of smart, talented ppl working on it now with even more to come.  if we can surgically dissect out the financially conflicted cancer, then core dev can advance in a healthy manner.  Bitcoin has evolved to that of a public good.  we should want that dissection to occur.

Doubling block size every 2 years is cancer.

A closer match to SV40


cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 21, 2015, 06:56:46 PM
 #27039

...
The key element if IBLT would be a structured ordering of transactions within a block. My personal feeling is that this is like the difference in handling ability between water in liquid form and water in solid form.  An ice cube is much more flexible to transport, and much easier to match to a mold (e.g., an identifiable ice tray configuration), but it is also more brittle.  An ice cube is also much easier to catch in a strainer than it's liquid counterpart.

that is the intent.

Of course.  It vastly expands the attack surface.



perhaps.  then a different solution will be made.  key thing about Bitcoin is that there are legions of smart, talented ppl working on it now with even more to come.  if we can surgically dissect out the financially conflicted cancer, then core dev can advance in a healthy manner.  Bitcoin has evolved to that of a public good.  we should want that dissection to occur.

Doubling block size every 2 years is cancer.

That's OK. Then we just cut back.

I'd rather try than not try at all.
av123
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 106


View Profile
June 21, 2015, 07:09:07 PM
 #27040

oh Lordy, now i'm having to educate TBI on digital gold:

https://twitter.com/twobitidiot/status/612652436126363648

Saw that.

Not sure why he would be so flippant about increasing the hard cap.
Pages: « 1 ... 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 1349 1350 1351 [1352] 1353 1354 1355 1356 1357 1358 1359 1360 1361 1362 1363 1364 1365 1366 1367 1368 1369 1370 1371 1372 1373 1374 1375 1376 1377 1378 1379 1380 1381 1382 1383 1384 1385 1386 1387 1388 1389 1390 1391 1392 1393 1394 1395 1396 1397 1398 1399 1400 1401 1402 ... 1560 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!