Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[TPTB_need_war]

Soft forking.

...

If you want to mine a block larger than the commonly accepted size, proceed with caution.

Yes that is what I thought must happen with new opcodes also. The alternative is to open a massive security hole as I explained. Thus tvbcof must be incorrect. A majority of the hashrate must adopt the soft fork, else it dies. Which is the way it should be. But isn't that a hard fork then?

Edit: http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/30817/what-is-a-soft-fork

The above definition of a soft fork appears to be flawed because it doesn't seem to weigh the fact that if the new version is more restrictive in a way that old versions can't verify, then the soft fork is effectively a virus which turns all old version full nodes into SPV clients over time. Surely I am not the first person to point this out?

[1714276768]

1714276768

[1714276768]

1714276768

[1714276768]

1714276768

[1714276768]

1714276768

[1714276768]

1714276768

[Odalv]

Nodes that don't understand an opcode have two choices:  1) drop it and 2) transmit it.

Every full node must verify every transaction. It can not verify what it can't parse. Thus afaics it delegates its full node responsibility to the other nodes which can parse the opcode, i.e. it becomes effectively a SPV client for those and all derivative transactions of those. Meaning that eventually all full nodes become SPV clients if the don't adopt every undocumented opcode (that is why I said it would a trojan horse security hole).

And iCe thinks I am not a software engineer. 

It is not true. Miner who do not understand op-code will not include transaction in block b/c he risks that his block will be ignored in case a transaction is invalid. But in case that other miners added this transaction into block  he will ignore  new op-code as it is NOP (no operation) instruction. (this mean, he will not verify if coins can be moved)

[TPTB_need_war]

It is not true. Miner who do not understand op-code will not include transaction in block b/c he risks that his block will be ignored in case a transaction is invalid. But in case that other miners added this transaction into block  he will ignore  new op-code as it is NOP (no operation) instruction. (this mean, he will not verify if coins can be moved)

Then it is a virus that turns every old version full node into an SPV client over time as the derivative transactions can't be fully verified from the root.

Did I just invent a new insight?

[TPTB_need_war]

https://bitcoinism.liberty.me/what-is-mining-why-do-we-need-it-and-how-much-is-enough/

Read the above long-winded, contentless, screed of cold leftovers if you like.  Or skim.  I'll be a good guy and break down the real issue right here:

Today's implementation of mining is like having a tin can tied to a horse's tail.  The fast the horse runs, the faster the can follows.  We've currently got about 6 miners (or horses so-to-speak) that make any real difference.

The main trouble with this is that each of the horses is going to hit the profitability break-even cliff at roughly the same time due to similar economics (though geo-politics could intercede.)  At that point there will be large chunks of sha256 power available since it's pointless to mine Bitcoin with it...at least for economic reasons.

The alternative is to try to match endless inflation against profitability not unlike how debt-based fiat systems work.  Bitcoin has so many sources of volatility that this would be a tough row to hoe even if it were (stupidly) chosen as a strategy.

Note that the economics of mining under our current paradigm are not even effected by block-size/fee-structure arguments.  That's a separate issue.

I believe you are referring to the usury model that likely funds the large ASIC farms. Interest compounding is an exponential function and thus can't go on forever unless the money supply expands at the same or greater exponential rate also (and even that can't go on forever because it misallocates real capital and resources).

The article does not address the fact that the State has the motive to censor transactions to enforce KYC up to the level of cost it can extract from society, because this is the only way the Industrial Age society can continue to parasite on the Knowledge Age with the NWO.

Thus if you want to defend against the takeover of Bitcoin to effectively a fiat currency, you need essentially the hashrate that extracts more value from society than the State can. This is why I decided that the security of Bitcoin (and all derivative altcoins including Monero) was a eugenics paradigm and doomed to fail.

Thus I set myself about finding the solution to the problem. And I did! Coming soon to a cinema near you...

[tvbcof]

It is not true. Miner who do not understand op-code will not include transaction in block b/c he risks that his block will be ignored in case a transaction is invalid. But in case that other miners added this transaction into block  he will ignore  new op-code as it is NOP (no operation) instruction. (this mean, he will not verify if coins can be moved)

Then it is a virus that turns every old version full node into an SPV client over time as the derivative transactions can't be fully verified from the root.

Did I just invent a new insight?

If your node cannot understand something, it should not verify the subset of transactions which fall into this category.  I think (but am not certain) that this would be one of the definitions of a hard-fork vs. a soft-fork.  That is to say, if a node can be fooled in following the rules coded into it into verifying as true a transaction which is false, that would be a hard-fork.

Note that 'verifying true what is false' is NOT the same thing as 'failing to verify'.

If your node is 'turning into an SPV client' than it's probably an indication that it's time to patch your software.  If you are ejected from the network if you do not do so, it's an indication that a hard-fork has happened.

[Odalv]

It is not true. Miner who do not understand op-code will not include transaction in block b/c he risks that his block will be ignored in case a transaction is invalid. But in case that other miners added this transaction into block  he will ignore  new op-code as it is NOP (no operation) instruction. (this mean, he will not verify if coins can be moved)

Then it is a virus that turns every old version full node into an SPV client over time as the derivative transactions can't be fully verified from the root.

Did I just invent a new insight?

Evaluating NOP as doing nothing is what current nodes do. :-) NOPs are there just for this reason. => add new functionality in case it is required. :-)

[TPTB_need_war]

It is not true. Miner who do not understand op-code will not include transaction in block b/c he risks that his block will be ignored in case a transaction is invalid. But in case that other miners added this transaction into block  he will ignore  new op-code as it is NOP (no operation) instruction. (this mean, he will not verify if coins can be moved)

Then it is a virus that turns every old version full node into an SPV client over time as the derivative transactions can't be fully verified from the root.

Did I just invent a new insight?

If your node cannot understand something, it should not verify the subset of transactions which fall into this category.  I think (but am not certain) that this would be one of the definitions of a hard-fork vs. a soft-fork.  That is to say, if a node can be fooled in following the rules coded into it into verifying as true a transaction which is false, that would be a hard-fork.

Note that 'verifying true what is false' is NOT the same thing as 'failing to verify'.

If your node is 'turning into an SPV client' than it's probably an indication that it's time to patch your software.  If you are ejected from the network if you do not do so, it's an indication that a hard-fork has happened.

I wasn't claiming an old version full node would verify what it can't.

If your old version full node can't verify any transaction, then it is equivalent to a SPV node.

Derivative transactions is a virus that eventually spreads to all transactions.

Thus you could put an undocumented opcode out there and eventually force all full nodes to be SPV nodes by spending in derivative transactions to normal opcodes and spreading out your dust into as many places as possible.

[kazuki49]

Please transport that to me within 10 minutes via my laptop's 3G (often dropping down to 56 kbps) wireless connection.

Yep, the naivete around here is astounding.

[tvbcof]

I wasn't claiming an old version full node would verify what it can't.

If your old version full node can't verify any transaction, then it is equivalent to a SPV nodes.

Only if you trust and/or mis-read what it is telling you.

Derivative transactions is a virus that eventually spreads to all transactions.

Thus you could put an undocumented opcode out there and eventually force all full nodes to be SPV nodes by spending in derivative transactions to normal opcodes and spreading out your dust into as many places as possible.

Sure.  Just get miners to accept it.  As I say, this tends not to happen without going through the BIP process (onerous though it may be.)  At least until Hearn get's his 'benevolent dictator' upgrade popularized sufficiently which will hopefully be never.

This is one of the reasons why there is a dichotomy between how those who are 'into' Bitcoin enough to be contributors an those who are players at a different level have such a difference of opinion on the XT project I think.  It's probably why Matonis seems to indicate that XT would kill Bitcoin.

[TPTB_need_war]

I wasn't claiming an old version full node would verify what it can't.

If your old version full node can't verify any transaction, then it is equivalent to a SPV nodes.

Only if you trust and/or mis-read what it is telling you.

Please stop trying to weasel words away from the logic that the full node is relegated to being the same as any other SPV node.

Derivative transactions is a virus that eventually spreads to all transactions.

Thus you could put an undocumented opcode out there and eventually force all full nodes to be SPV nodes by spending in derivative transactions to normal opcodes and spreading out your dust into as many places as possible.

Sure.  Just get miners to accept it.

But your argument was that by default miners ignore and accept opcodes they don't parse (aka not a hard fork), thus no need to convince miners to accept your undocumented opcode (aka a soft fork). Please make up your mind which functionality you are arguing miners do by default in the old version. You are moving the goal posts.

[Odalv]

It is not true. Miner who do not understand op-code will not include transaction in block b/c he risks that his block will be ignored in case a transaction is invalid. But in case that other miners added this transaction into block  he will ignore  new op-code as it is NOP (no operation) instruction. (this mean, he will not verify if coins can be moved)

Then it is a virus that turns every old version full node into an SPV client over time as the derivative transactions can't be fully verified from the root.

Did I just invent a new insight?

If your node cannot understand something, it should not verify the subset of transactions which fall into this category.  I think (but am not certain) that this would be one of the definitions of a hard-fork vs. a soft-fork.  That is to say, if a node can be fooled in following the rules coded into it into verifying as true a transaction which is false, that would be a hard-fork.

Note that 'verifying true what is false' is NOT the same thing as 'failing to verify'.

If your node is 'turning into an SPV client' than it's probably an indication that it's time to patch your software.  If you are ejected from the network if you do not do so, it's an indication that a hard-fork has happened.

I wasn't claiming an old version full node would verify what it can't.

If your old version full node can't verify any transaction, then it is equivalent to a SPV node.

Derivative transactions is a virus that eventually spreads to all transactions.

Thus you could put an undocumented opcode out there and eventually force all full nodes to be SPV nodes by spending in derivative transactions to normal opcodes and spreading out your dust into as many places as possible.

99,9% of transactions are simplest (move coins from adress A to address B and C) ... but single bitcoin transaction can be much more complex

[luigi1111]

Derivative transactions is a virus that eventually spreads to all transactions.

Thus you could put an undocumented opcode out there and eventually force all full nodes to be SPV nodes by spending in derivative transactions to normal opcodes and spreading out your dust into as many places as possible.

Sure.  Just get miners to accept it.

But your argument was that by default miners ignore and accept opcodes they don't parse (aka not a hard fork), thus no need to convince miners to accept your undocumented opcode (aka a soft fork). Please make up your mind which functionality you are arguing miners do by default in the old version. You are moving the goal posts.

I *think* he was saying that you need to get (a) miner(s) to accept it so that it can get placed into a block, which would be necessary to create a situation like you're discussing.

Might not be what he meant though.

Edit: meaning, I think, that "miners" (same as other full nodes) would accept/ignore codes they don't know IF they are included in a block, but would not accept them for inclusion into their own blocks.

[chessplayer99z]

Very good info thanks!

[Odalv]

Edit: meaning, I think, that "miners" (same as other full nodes) would accept/ignore codes they don't know IF they are included in a block, but would not accept them for inclusion into their own blocks.

+1 .. this is soft fork

[Odalv]

cypherdoc, I do not believe that you will create "free" storage service with capacity "8,000 MB every 10 minutes" and with "100% guaranty" that no data will ever be lost. .... otherwise 8GB'er SC will fail (one simple mistake, single transactions is lost .. and  all data are invalid ).

[cypherdoc]

Great article. Emphasizes how all the geeks on this thread don't understand fundamentally what bitcoin is about. I don't necessarily agree with his characterization as commodity money nor with the 4 somewhat confusing classifications of money but overall he gets it:

http://wallstreettechnologist.com/2015/05/30/why-you-should-be-a-bitcoin-maximalist/

[tvbcof]

Edit: meaning, I think, that "miners" (same as other full nodes) would accept/ignore codes they don't know IF they are included in a block, but would not accept them for inclusion into their own blocks.

+1 .. this is soft fork

That was my basic understanding, but I'm glad to get confirmation from ~odalv on this.

Unfortunately it is conceptually up an orbit two past where most general users in the ecosystem are at.  Unfortunate because it has a large bearing on why various arguments and disputes come from.  On one hand I've always argued that everyone who hodls should be aware of this minutia, but I cannot honestly say that I have a what I would classify as proficiency myself and I have the advantage of having a better than average background in systems and codebase management and such.

I do hope (and sense) that this conversation has been valuable to some of the participants.

[tvbcof]

Great article. Emphasizes how all the geeks on this thread don't understand fundamentally what bitcoin is about. I don't necessarily agree with his characterization as commodity money nor with the 4 somewhat confusing classifications of money but overall he gets it:

http://wallstreettechnologist.com/2015/05/30/why-you-should-be-a-bitcoin-maximalist/

Yet another long screed where some imbecile bloviates about 'money'.  Yawn.  Skimming a few sentances scattered througout the disertation is enough to see that it is a waste of time (or worse.)

Bitcoin is Bitcoin.  Whether one has some innate insecurity which makes them need to believe it is 'money' or is not 'money' or yada yada yada doesn't change Bitcoin in the slightest.  For years I've argued that whatever it is, it is fine to NOT consider it 'money' just on practical legal grounds, but at the end of the day, who gives a fuck?

I didn't even get to the end where (presumably from your (often completely wrong) representation of the story) the guy claims that Bitcoin should be the one ring that rules them all or whatever.  Not worth the bother.  From the few sentences I did read the guy's conclusions are almost certainly useless bullshit no matter what they are.

[TPTB_need_war]

Edit: meaning, I think, that "miners" (same as other full nodes) would accept/ignore codes they don't know IF they are included in a block, but would not accept them for inclusion into their own blocks.

+1 .. this is soft fork

That was my basic understanding, but I'm glad to get confirmation from ~odalv on this.

Nothing has been stated which refutes my logic. If the old version has the functionality that luigi1111, Odalv, and tcbcof have reaffirmed is their assumption, then the dire outcome I explained is the potential result. Perhaps there are other possible mitigations to such an attack.

Somebody needs to bring this to the attention of the Core devs. Appears on the surface of it, they may have a serious lapse in logic (but not having seen their rebuttal, I might be missing something).

And thus please iCebreaker and tvbcof stop asserting or insinuating that Gmaxwell is smarter than me on every aspect of computer science. I already stated upthread that he is smarter than me on many aspects, including the depth of the cryptography math. I have already bested him on several occasions, including being the first to point out in his thread the logic of why CoinJoin can not work. I (with smooth's post leading the way) also recently pointed out that their white paper is unrealistic on the possibility of SPV proof transfers within 2 days, and that they failed to explain the lossy transfer and speculative angle. I also provided the math to prove Gmaxwell wrong in the Longest Chain thread. And now this.

I am not in a competition of ego with Gregory. He appeared to try to frame it that way in the past and I asked him not to in public (and lost my cool to him in private one time). Lately I've had a very brief private positive exchange with him and I hope it remains so. I would never try to assert my qualifications are greater than his. He can have that title, I don't want it. I am interested in results, not reputation (but please don't slander me when you don't know me).

Possibly the reason reputation is not so critically important to me, is that I have no desire whatsoever to go take employment. I am 50 years old (day after) tomorrow and I am really not interested to work under command of anyone else. I will work for the market and as a collaborator with anyone worthy.

[tvbcof]

...
And thus please iCebreaker and tvbcof stop asserting or insinuating that Gmaxwell is smarter than me on every aspect of computer science.

WTF?  I never said any such thing.  In point of fact I basically took it as more or less self-evident, but I never had any reason to state it.  Until now

I already stated upthread that he is smarter than me on many aspects, including the depth of the cryptography math. I have already bested him on several occasions, including being the first to point out in his thread the logic of why CoinJoin can not work. I (with smooth's post leading the way) also recently pointed out that their white paper is unrealistic on the possibility of SPV proof transfers within 2 days, and that they failed to explain the lossy transfer and speculative angle. I also provided the math to prove Gmaxwell wrong in the Longest Chain thread. And now this.

I am not in a competition of ego with Gregory.

Now why would anyone suspect such a thing

He appeared to try to frame it that way in the past and I asked him not to in public (and lost my cool to him in private one time). Lately I've had a very brief private positive exchange with him and I hope it remains so. I would never try to assert my qualifications are greater than his. He can have that title, I don't want it. I am interested in results, not reputation (but please don't slander me when you don't know me).

Possibly the reason reputation is not so critically important to me, is that I have no desire whatsoever to go take employment. I am 50 years old (day after) tomorrow and I am really not interested to work under command of anyone else. I will work for the market and as a collaborator with anyone worthy.

Happy birthday.