Bitcoin Forum
December 09, 2016, 08:02:08 AM *
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 ... 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 1403 1404 1405 1406 1407 1408 1409 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1806975 times)
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
June 22, 2015, 10:59:33 PM
 #27161

my nodes having no trouble keeping up with memory and no signs of crashing.

increase load 20x and you will see what is chaos.

edit:
it is 1 MB block size limit what keeps your nodes happy. :-)

Yes, the test demonstrates, if anything, that hell does not break lose when transaction pressure exceeds the limit. So it is not critical that the increase happens at any specific point. What we still don't know, is what happens when real people really want transactions to go through, and when the pressure keeps up over weeks. I think there is time to do it calmly.


This test demonstrates that cypherdoc's resources are at 25-45% of its capacity. And if we increase block size 8x then he can process only 2-4 MB blocks and his nodes will collapse.
1481270528
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481270528

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481270528
Reply with quote  #2

1481270528
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481270528
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481270528

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481270528
Reply with quote  #2

1481270528
Report to moderator
1481270528
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481270528

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481270528
Reply with quote  #2

1481270528
Report to moderator
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
June 22, 2015, 11:05:04 PM
 #27162

my nodes

The vested interest.

This is why I hate PoW mining as an economically significant paradigm.

ASIC hardware can't be repurposed.

I designed a far superior ASIC-resistant hash (meaning leverage the ASIC inside the CPU) than Monero's but I was still reticent because it is not sufficient to deal with that paradigmatic flaw, but then suddenly ugghh the epiphany and the rest is history waiting to be made.

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 22, 2015, 11:14:50 PM
 #27163

my nodes having no trouble keeping up with memory and no signs of crashing.

increase load 20x and you will see what is chaos.

edit:
it is 1 MB block size limit what keeps your nodes happy. :-)

Yes, the test demonstrates, if anything, that hell does not break lose when transaction pressure exceeds the limit. So it is not critical that the increase happens at any specific point. What we still don't know, is what happens when real people really want transactions to go through, and when the pressure keeps up over weeks. I think there is time to do it calmly.


This test demonstrates that cypherdoc's resources are at 25-45% of its capacity. And if we increase block size 8x then he can process only 2-4 MB blocks and his nodes will collapse.

nobody is expecting to not have to increase their full node capacity upon 8MB block sizes.  that's the price to pay to bring in new users.  as new users come in, more merchants will be born and host their own full nodes.   that's what we have been talking about as the network moves to more specialized full nodes.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 22, 2015, 11:16:33 PM
 #27164

unconf tx's are still only at 6400
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 22, 2015, 11:18:04 PM
 #27165

fee rate dropping again:

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 22, 2015, 11:29:27 PM
 #27166

my nodes having no trouble keeping up with memory and no signs of crashing.

increase load 20x and you will see what is chaos.

edit:
it is 1 MB block size limit what keeps your nodes happy. :-)

Yes, the test demonstrates, if anything, that hell does not break lose when transaction pressure exceeds the limit. So it is not critical that the increase happens at any specific point. What we still don't know, is what happens when real people really want transactions to go through, and when the pressure keeps up over weeks. I think there is time to do it calmly.


This test demonstrates that cypherdoc's resources are at 25-45% of its capacity. And if we increase block size 8x then he can process only 2-4 MB blocks and his nodes will collapse.

no, my higher memory usage is coming from higher than normal unconf tx's.  the UTXO set is relatively flat at around 7MiB.  with bigger blocks, the unconf tx's could be cleared out much faster in bigger chunks.
Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714



View Profile
June 22, 2015, 11:30:48 PM
 #27167

my nodes having no trouble keeping up with memory and no signs of crashing.

increase load 20x and you will see what is chaos.

edit:
it is 1 MB block size limit what keeps your nodes happy. :-)

Yes, the test demonstrates, if anything, that hell does not break lose when transaction pressure exceeds the limit. So it is not critical that the increase happens at any specific point. What we still don't know, is what happens when real people really want transactions to go through, and when the pressure keeps up over weeks. I think there is time to do it calmly.


This test demonstrates that cypherdoc's resources are at 25-45% of its capacity. And if we increase block size 8x then he can process only 2-4 MB blocks and his nodes will collapse.

So you think his hardware is suffering from muscular atrophy?
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 22, 2015, 11:40:35 PM
 #27168

what's interesting is that this attack is not slowing down block formation at_all.  we're just seeing continual full blocks.  based on Tradeblock's previous analysis, real customer tx's can probably get through if they pay a high enough fee.  unfortunately, the avg consumer won't know what that fee is given current wallet software capability and will get frustrated from delays.

edit:  altho unconf tx's aren't that bad at 4500
Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714



View Profile
June 23, 2015, 01:10:16 AM
 #27169

what's interesting is that this attack is not slowing down block formation at_all.  we're just seeing continual full blocks.  based on Tradeblock's previous analysis, real customer tx's can probably get through if they pay a high enough fee.  unfortunately, the avg consumer won't know what that fee is given current wallet software capability and will get frustrated from delays.

edit:  altho unconf tx's aren't that bad at 4500

My guess is when we approach the limit, 1) people will learn what is the necessary fee to get their transactions into the first block, 2) the blocks will normally not be full for those transactions, 3) some people will pay lower fees and they are happy to risk waiting a few blocks sometimes. 4) The fee will be just high enough to discourage the least necessary transactions.

Said otherwise, since people's preferences are diversified, most people will be happy with the situation. This does not mean I want an artificial cap; the lower prices and the larger number of happy customers, the better chance bitcoin has to be the global money system everybody prefer. Only the physical limits of the system, as defined by nature, should exist.

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 23, 2015, 01:21:31 AM
 #27170

dying off again:

smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246



View Profile
June 23, 2015, 01:24:35 AM
 #27171

This does not mean I want an artificial cap; the lower prices and the larger number of happy customers, the better chance bitcoin has to be the global money system everybody prefer. Only the physical limits of the system, as defined by nature, should exist.

There is no physical limit defined by nature, other than whatever the highest capacity node in the world can handle (which would be the only node able to keep up and therefore the network would consist of a single node).

In any other configuration the capacity is defined by the lowest capacity node on the network, which is not a limit defined by nature, but by intended or unintended consequences of the protocol design. If you want the lowest capacity node to be home computers, embedded devices, etc. then the protocol has to be designed differently than if you want that lowest capacity node to be a large or very large server in a data center. Nature allows either.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 23, 2015, 01:31:17 AM
 #27172

i don't think any spam attacks can be sustained for a prolonged period of time.  it's too expensive as they pay normal tx fees.  while yes, at 1MB, they crowd out normal users, at 8MB or more, the spammers have to pay 8x more in fees.  while the anti Gavin crowd will say it's a drop in the bucket to perform such an attack even at 8x, what they i think they miss is that those tx fees will be tremendously beneficial for the miners raking up all those free fees and actually is expensive.  that will strengthen mining which is always a good thing for an industry that has been under stress for over the last year.  that would be the last thing they want to do.  can you also imagine a sustained 8x increase in the tx graph below?:



and what that would do to the price?  an 8x increase?  pt being, a spam attack is and will get more and more expensive and uneconomical and even strengthen mining.  it's be like your local candy store; owners ideally would like to sell to as many kids on the block as possible to keep them all happy but if one big kid keeps coming in week after week and buying out all your inventory, you aren't going to complain.  you might even prefer it as your turnover increases and you make more money.

all in all, this is just another form of manipulation of an open source, transparent system that won't work in the end and shouldn't be used as a reason for us not to adopt Gavin's plan.

edit:  yes, full nodes will be more expensive. but we already know they will become specialized.  and once pruning comes in, ordinary users can still run those.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 23, 2015, 01:37:11 AM
 #27173

hey, i thought the network was only capable of 2-3 tx/s?  look at our peaks today.  not bad:

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 23, 2015, 04:03:15 AM
 #27174

all over.  and it would be the same at 8MB:

molecular
Donator
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 2142



View Profile
June 23, 2015, 04:28:31 AM
 #27175

hey, i thought the network was only capable of 2-3 tx/s?  look at our peaks today.  not bad:



Those are tx merely being broadcast. "being capable of" means they can get into blocks at a sustained rate.

It would be cool to see that graph for transactions having 1 confirmation.


PGP key molecular F9B70769 fingerprint 9CDD C0D3 20F8 279F 6BE0  3F39 FC49 2362 F9B7 0769
Melbustus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1554



View Profile
June 23, 2015, 05:20:05 AM
 #27176

Subsidies are great if you want to get applicants who qualify, It should be called a subsidiary not a reward for good reason, the problem is there are developers who feel the economics are wrong and Bitcoin needs to be fixed, I may not be able to express why but to my understanding the mechanism seems well balanced and considered in my view, the onus is on the people who have a problem with how Bitcoin works to prove its broken, and build a better mousetrap not change this one.
My position is that it would be great if we could have started Bitcoin up without a block subsidy, but since the currency has to be issued via some method, and since the only way to produce a truly optimal initial distribution would require an entity that was both omnipotent and omniscient, issuing the currency via block subsidy spread out over time is the least terrible way to do it.

It's in my queue of articles that need to be written.


I like Satoshi's quote on this:

Quote from: satoshi
...
Coins have to get initially distributed somehow, and a constant rate seems like the best formula.
...
http://www.mail-archive.com/cryptography%40metzdowd.com/msg09979.html


The nonchalance, to me, indicates a nice trust in markets to do their job of optimizing allocation over time. But - if Bitcoin ever starts to become a serious global economic force, mainstream economists are going to flip out over the above quote, given the initial-distribution algo didn't go through some deep analysis, etc... 

I think it's interesting how the engineering decision of making a simple/transparent (easy to implement, thus more secure) distribution algorithm trumped any potential detailed economic complexity, presumably due to Satoshi's understanding that the market would eventually allocate the capital optimally anyways, given the transparency of the current and future supply.

Bitcoin is the first monetary system to credibly offer perfect information to all economic participants.
But Bitcointalk & /r/bitcoin are heavily censored. bitco.in/forum, forum.bitcoin.com, and /r/btc are open.
Best info on Casascius coins: http://spotcoins.com/casascius
Carlton Banks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1470



View Profile
June 23, 2015, 06:24:29 AM
 #27177

all over.  and it would be the same at 8MB:

So you've abandoned 20 MB? And Bitcoin XT? What made you change your mind?

Vires in numeris
da2ce7
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218


Live and Let Live


View Profile
June 23, 2015, 06:55:00 AM
 #27178



While I'm moderately against just increasing the block size. (I think that we should sort out the rest of the hard engineering infrastructure so we can actually support larger blocks first).

The main point is even on this forum we have nowhere near the 95%+ consensus that we need to do a hard-fork.

Gavin's latest proposal is just dangerous with only needing 75% of the miners to agree.

I would much prefer Bitcoin to continue to work with 1MB blocks, than be destroyed on the reckless quest for larger blocks.

One off NP-Hard.
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1988


View Profile
June 23, 2015, 06:57:29 AM
 #27179


I like Satoshi's quote on this:

Quote from: satoshi
...
Coins have to get initially distributed somehow, and a constant rate seems like the best formula.
...
http://www.mail-archive.com/cryptography%40metzdowd.com/msg09979.html

The nonchalance, to me, indicates a nice trust in markets to do their job of optimizing allocation over time. But - if Bitcoin ever starts to become a serious global economic force, mainstream economists are going to flip out over the above quote, given the initial-distribution algo didn't go through some deep analysis, etc... 

I think it's interesting how the engineering decision of making a simple/transparent (easy to implement, thus more secure) distribution algorithm trumped any potential detailed economic complexity, presumably due to Satoshi's understanding that the market would eventually allocate the capital optimally anyways, given the transparency of the current and future supply.

One of the nice things about having a 'benevolent dictator' is that it will be much easier to make decisions about these things going forward.

We already know that in the noble interest of getting a 'critical mass' in order to 'outrun regulation', it is critical  to subsidize transaction costs.  We also know with some reasonable certainty that one of the early attractions of Bitcoin was that people could 'make free money' with only a token effort.  People like free shit.  Always will.

In order to spread the wealth there are two choices.

 - make more wealth and give it away (e.g., screw the obsolete 21 million cap thingy.)

 - appropriate existing or lost money and hand it out.

Idea!  We can be pretty sure that if/when XT takes over, coin tainting is not far behind.  Why don't we use the otherwise wasted value to pass around to the masses.  Maybe like a dividend to be distributed to all existing addresses.  To be more fair and reduce gaming, however, it makes sense that people would need to appropriately register their true identities in order to receive the dividend though.


tvbcof
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1988


View Profile
June 23, 2015, 07:08:56 AM
 #27180

all over.  and it would be the same at 8MB:

So you've abandoned 20 MB? And Bitcoin XT? What made you change your mind?

cypherdoc changed his mind because Gavin did presumably.  Gavin did because it was easier to do this as quitely as possible than to try to change the laws of arithmetic.

Both of them know that it's the exponential growth that is the critical element here since it is pretty certain to sink Bitcoin eventually.  (Actually, cypherdoc may or may not know that or may or may not care much if he can make a buck in the interim.)

Like I've been saying about {n} MB increase (and exponential growth) for the last while now: 'Watch the pea.'

Of course since I like the expression and it fits a few things here in bitcoinland,  so I've also been saying the same thing about UTXO size.


Pages: « 1 ... 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 1403 1404 1405 1406 1407 1408 1409 ... 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!