Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[tvbcof]

The only technically knowledgeable people who support this inane system design do so because they see clearly that it will consolidate the infrastructure into a form that is as easily controlled as fiat money is currently.  To many many people, this consolidation of control is a good thing.  Most people love Big Brother whether they realize it or not and have the reflexes trained to support him.

this is precisely why we disagree on everything.  i believe that the internet can allow the ppl to take back control of their money as it should be.  don't forget that central banks are still a relatively new concept in the modern age.  with that, i mean, going back 100 yrs or so. 

maybe it's naive, maybe not.  but it certainly is worth the effort and risk to try.  which is why i support lifting the block limit just to see what happens.  i believe we will cope.

Ever hear of Edward Snowden?  Do you know what it means when someone in the 5-eyes says that they 'own the internet?'

As an infrastructure the global internet is no where nearly as robust as most people imagine.  It can be much better, but there is little incentive and this is no accident.  Most people cannot fathom designing in any other way but to maximize the capabilities granted by the owners of this resource and are dimly aware, if at all, how tenuous some of the capabilities are.

My sensibilities as an engineer and system designer had been to design for the worst plausible scenarios.  In a great many cases this resulted in some wasted effort and some limitations.  In a minority of cases it turned out that some of the worst fears were realized and my systems continued to perform to design.  These minority of cases outweighed the majority by a mile.  Part of the reason for this is that the super-systems did not become reliant on capabilities which the sub-systems were unable to deliver.

[1714240163]

1714240163

[1714240163]

1714240163

[1714240163]

1714240163

[cypherdoc]

how do u like dem apples?

[rocks]

This is about right

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3bka9i/upetertodd_is_trying_to_get_full_replacebyfee/csmxi6i

I think replace by fee is good. It is a way to unstick a transaction that is stuck with too low fee, when you are in a hurry.  It does not change the protocol in any way, it is just the miner chooses the transaction with the higher fee, making the old one illegal. It does not fill up blocks, only the network.

On the other hand, I don't think it is critically important, necessary or even specially useful. I think the market will sort out fees, making normal high-paying transactions fill up only half the space available in blocks.

There are two versions of replace-by-fee: "first-seen safe" and "full."  Peter Todd is pushing "full" replace-by-fee which breaks the security of zero-confirm transactions.  When F2Pool added replace-by-fee, they initially used the full version, but then switched to the first-seen safe version when the recognized the problem.

Which version do you think is good?  What does replace-by-fee do that child-pays-parent can't?

The replace-by-fee mechanism allows the sender to change a transaction and increase a fee, while the child-pays-parent mechanism allows a receiver to add a fee to an existing transaction.

And this is why RBF is completely contrary to the ethos of Bitcoin. Bitcoin was designed so that transactions can not be canceled and so that once a receiver takes control of BTC they have full control. The P2P network rejecting 2nd seen transactions is one aspect of that mechanism, the blockchain record is another.

RBF transfers power from the receiver and puts it back in the hands of the sender. With RBF after two people make an exchange, the sender now has the ability to reach into the receivers pocket and take the sent BTC back. This is horrifying and this is not Bitcoin. RBF complete destroys zero confirm transaction confidence, which the P2P network provides today.

[Erdogan]

blocks full again with TPS unacceptably high --> unconf tx set ~ 3000, more than double normal.  pools taking defensive action.  when will Blockstream devs do something?:

Why do you call this "defensive" action?

when Chinese pools face a series of what they consider to be "large blocks", which in this case means full blocks as you can see from the data, they automatically switch to mining "header" blocks with 0 tx's during the time it takes to process all the tx's in the preceding large block.  this is b/c large blocks take a bit more time to process and check all the signatures so the argument goes that they can't afford to waste that precious time so for defensive purposed they just go ahead and start hashing  the next block with only the  "header" that in this case contain no tx's that might have included an invalid input from the preceding large block.

How about: When they see a new block, they immediately start mining based on that, with an empty transaction list. When they have removed the transactions in the last block from their own list of transactions to include, they mine with the new list. If a block is found quickly, it will be the empty block, else it will be a block with the new list.

You can see that the zero transaction blocks always come a short time after the previous. But they should not need minutes to establish a new list, so I am not sure.

Maybe some miner can chime in and say what really is going on.

[cypherdoc]

The only technically knowledgeable people who support this inane system design do so because they see clearly that it will consolidate the infrastructure into a form that is as easily controlled as fiat money is currently.  To many many people, this consolidation of control is a good thing.  Most people love Big Brother whether they realize it or not and have the reflexes trained to support him.

this is precisely why we disagree on everything.  i believe that the internet can allow the ppl to take back control of their money as it should be.  don't forget that central banks are still a relatively new concept in the modern age.  with that, i mean, going back 100 yrs or so. 

maybe it's naive, maybe not.  but it certainly is worth the effort and risk to try.  which is why i support lifting the block limit just to see what happens.  i believe we will cope.

Ever hear of Edward Snowden? 

actually, i have.  and he is precisely one of the reasons i think we're winning.

the NSA and 5 Eyes, i believe, are going to lose in the long run precisely b/c Snowden's leak shows they can't secure data.  everyone knows this now which is why Google and Apple have started encrypting as default, much to the chagrin of the gvt.  and this is happening all over the internet.

furthermore, with 21 Inc on the verge of releasing mini Asic chips that power devices, the chances for mass decentralization of Bitcoin goes up.  also, the Internet has never had it's own monetary system or means of conveniently and cheaply paying one another in realtime.  Bitcoin, for the first time in history, can provide that.

[Peter R]

The replace-by-fee mechanism allows the sender to change a transaction and increase a fee, while the child-pays-parent mechanism allows a receiver to add a fee to an existing transaction.

In most cases (and all cases with a smart wallet), child-pays-parent allows both sender or receiver to add a fee to an existing transaction.  The reason is that in most cases, a transaction contains an output that returns change to the sender.  This means the sender can create a child transaction that re-spends this change output, thereby increasing the parent's effective fee.  

And this is why RBF is completely contrary to the ethos of Bitcoin. Bitcoin was designed so that transactions can not be canceled and so that once a receiver takes control of BTC they have full control. The P2P network rejecting 2nd seen transactions is one aspect of that mechanism, the blockchain record is another.

Agreed.

RBF transfers power from the receiver and puts it back in the hands of the sender. With RBF after two people make an exchange, the sender now has the ability to reach into the receivers pocket and take the sent BTC back. This is horrifying.

In the case of non-FFS, I agree.  

[cypherdoc]

This is about right

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3bka9i/upetertodd_is_trying_to_get_full_replacebyfee/csmxi6i

I think replace by fee is good. It is a way to unstick a transaction that is stuck with too low fee, when you are in a hurry.  It does not change the protocol in any way, it is just the miner chooses the transaction with the higher fee, making the old one illegal. It does not fill up blocks, only the network.

On the other hand, I don't think it is critically important, necessary or even specially useful. I think the market will sort out fees, making normal high-paying transactions fill up only half the space available in blocks.

There are two versions of replace-by-fee: "first-seen safe" and "full."  Peter Todd is pushing "full" replace-by-fee which breaks the security of zero-confirm transactions.  When F2Pool added replace-by-fee, they initially used the full version, but then switched to the first-seen safe version when the recognized the problem.

Which version do you think is good?  What does replace-by-fee do that child-pays-parent can't?

The replace-by-fee mechanism allows the sender to change a transaction and increase a fee, while the child-pays-parent mechanism allows a receiver to add a fee to an existing transaction.

And this is why RBF is completely contrary to the ethos of Bitcoin. Bitcoin was designed so that transactions can not be canceled and so that once a receiver takes control of BTC they have full control. The P2P network rejecting 2nd seen transactions is one aspect of that mechanism, the blockchain record is another.

RBF transfers power from the receiver and puts it back in the hands of the sender. With RBF after two people make an exchange, the sender now has the ability to reach into the receivers pocket and take the sent BTC back. This is horrifying and this is not Bitcoin. RBF complete destroys zero confirm transaction confidence, which the P2P network provides today.

with RBF, does the sender have the ability to completely change the destination address back to himself?

[Peter R]

with RBF, does the sender have the ability to completely change the destination address back to himself?

Yes, in the case of full-RBF. No, in the case of FFS-RBF.  

[Erdogan]

Also ZH is practically pumping bitcoin these days 

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-06-30/fiat-faith-falters-bitcoin-surges-12-post-greferendum

Hardly. Read the comments.

[tvbcof]

Ever hear of Edward Snowden?  Do you know what it means when someone in the 5-eyes says that they 'own the internet?'

As an infrastructure the global internet is no where nearly as robust as most people imagine.  It can be much better, but there is little incentive and this is no accident.  Most people cannot fathom designing in any other way but to maximize the capabilities granted by the owners of this resource and are dimly aware, if at all, how tenuous some of the capabilities are.

My sensibilities as an engineer and system designer had been to design for the worst plausible scenarios.  In a great many cases this resulted in some wasted effort and some limitations.  In a minority of cases it turned out that some of the worst fears were realized and my systems continued to perform to design.  These minority of cases outweighed the majority by a mile.  Part of the reason for this is that the super-systems did not become reliant on capabilities which the sub-systems were unable to deliver.

actually, i have.  and he is precisely one of the reasons i think we're winning.

the NSA and 5 Eyes, i believe, are going to lose in the long run precisely b/c Snowden's leak shows they can't secure data.  everyone knows this now which is why Google and Apple have started encrypting as default, much to the chagrin of the gvt.  and this is happening all over the internet.

furthermore, with 21 Inc on the verge of releasing mini Asic chips that power devices, the chances for mass decentralization of Bitcoin goes up.  also, the Internet has never had it's own monetary system or means of conveniently and cheaply paying one another in realtime.  Bitcoin, for the first time in history, can provide that.

OK, let's try again.  Ever heard of 'packet filtering?'

[cypherdoc]

blocks full again with TPS unacceptably high --> unconf tx set ~ 3000, more than double normal.  pools taking defensive action.  when will Blockstream devs do something?:

Why do you call this "defensive" action?

when Chinese pools face a series of what they consider to be "large blocks", which in this case means full blocks as you can see from the data, they automatically switch to mining "header" blocks with 0 tx's during the time it takes to process all the tx's in the preceding large block.  this is b/c large blocks take a bit more time to process and check all the signatures so the argument goes that they can't afford to waste that precious time so for defensive purposed they just go ahead and start hashing  the next block with only the  "header" that in this case contain no tx's that might have included an invalid input from the preceding large block.

How about: When they see a new block, they immediately start mining based on that, with an empty transaction list. When they have removed the transactions in the last block from their own list of transactions to include, they mine with the new list. If a block is found quickly, it will be the empty block, else it will be a block with the new list.

You can see that the zero transaction blocks always come a short time after the previous. But they should not need minutes to establish a new list, so I am not sure.

Maybe some miner can chime in and say what really is going on.

your first paragraph was correct.

i'm not sure why the 0 tx blocks come so fast after the previous block.  i keep asking this.

it's the sigop checking of a large block, i believe, that takes the extra time.

[tvbcof]

with RBF, does the sender have the ability to completely change the destination address back to himself?

What's your problem with that?  It's his money until it's not.

Oh, Bitcoin is not a real-time system in spite of years of propaganda trying to make it so?  How sad.  I think I'm going to cry.

[cypherdoc]

Ever hear of Edward Snowden?  Do you know what it means when someone in the 5-eyes says that they 'own the internet?'

As an infrastructure the global internet is no where nearly as robust as most people imagine.  It can be much better, but there is little incentive and this is no accident.  Most people cannot fathom designing in any other way but to maximize the capabilities granted by the owners of this resource and are dimly aware, if at all, how tenuous some of the capabilities are.

My sensibilities as an engineer and system designer had been to design for the worst plausible scenarios.  In a great many cases this resulted in some wasted effort and some limitations.  In a minority of cases it turned out that some of the worst fears were realized and my systems continued to perform to design.  These minority of cases outweighed the majority by a mile.  Part of the reason for this is that the super-systems did not become reliant on capabilities which the sub-systems were unable to deliver.

actually, i have.  and he is precisely one of the reasons i think we're winning.

the NSA and 5 Eyes, i believe, are going to lose in the long run precisely b/c Snowden's leak shows they can't secure data.  everyone knows this now which is why Google and Apple have started encrypting as default, much to the chagrin of the gvt.  and this is happening all over the internet.

furthermore, with 21 Inc on the verge of releasing mini Asic chips that power devices, the chances for mass decentralization of Bitcoin goes up.  also, the Internet has never had it's own monetary system or means of conveniently and cheaply paying one another in realtime.  Bitcoin, for the first time in history, can provide that.

OK, let's try again.  Ever heard of 'packet filtering?'

sure.  and have you heard that despite the Great Firewall of China, ordinary Chinese citizens can still get through with a VPN or Tor?

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

if you're saying where we're going is Moon, then how can a 1MB cap (assuming SC or LN take a year) even with wallet fee capability, result in a smoothly adjusting fee increase as we consistently hit the 1MB cap?  if anything, it will go parabolic in a chaotic fashion and result in extremely poor user experience and subsequent rejection.

Because it can be economically expected that most transactions now are low priority, since fees are cheap. This means the actual transaction volume that likely would be taking place given only somewhat more expensive fees is much, much less. It's should be obvious enough that if transactions were completely free people would spam like crazy. That's not a judgment on the validity of those transactions; it's just economic reality. People start to economize dramatically when there is even a marginally-above-zero cost versus when there isn't.

This is in no way suggesting 1MB is sufficient, but it's not helpful to pretend that transaction volume when fees are negligible will remain the same if fees go to merely tiny. In no other market would we expect such a thing, and for all we know we could easily be talking about order-of-magnitude differences in volume from a fee increase that still presents no real pain for any major use case.

[cypherdoc]

with RBF, does the sender have the ability to completely change the destination address back to himself?

What's your problem with that?  It's his money until it's not.

Oh, Bitcoin is not a real-time system in spite of years of propaganda trying to make it so?  How sad.  I think I'm going to cry.

whoosh.  completely over your head, isn't it?

the only reason a vendor has the confidence to let someone walk out the store with a cup of coffee instantly is that the tx is irreversible for the most part.  by forcing RBF, now the vendor has to stop everything else he's doing, like serving MORE cups of coffee, to watch that the buyer doesn't walk out of the store before receiving 1 confirmation. 

you'd make a great marketing strategist. 

[Erdogan]

This is about right

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3bka9i/upetertodd_is_trying_to_get_full_replacebyfee/csmxi6i

I think replace by fee is good. It is a way to unstick a transaction that is stuck with too low fee, when you are in a hurry.  It does not change the protocol in any way, it is just the miner chooses the transaction with the higher fee, making the old one illegal. It does not fill up blocks, only the network.

On the other hand, I don't think it is critically important, necessary or even specially useful. I think the market will sort out fees, making normal high-paying transactions fill up only half the space available in blocks.

There are two versions of replace-by-fee: "first-seen safe" and "full."  Peter Todd is pushing "full" replace-by-fee which breaks the security of zero-confirm transactions.  When F2Pool added replace-by-fee, they initially used the full version, but then switched to the first-seen safe version when the recognized the problem.

Which version do you think is good?  What does replace-by-fee do that child-pays-parent can't?

I am not an expert on the technicals, I thought it would fuck up zero conf anyway. You spend the same output with an increased fee. Miners can implement whatever selection criteria they want,  as has always been. You could complain, but when something is buried deep in the blockchain there is not much you can do. Making rules would change bitcoin, in my opinion. Anyway, not expert, I like to drivel on the economics side, and I think it is useful, but not helping with pile-ups, and not needed.

I know nothing about child-pays-parent, but but but... the miner must mine the parent if he wants the fee from the child. Ok, sounds good, need no change in protocol, go ahead. Why not both? But still not needed IMO, the market will solve the problem of pile-ups as long as the fee mechanism is there.

[tvbcof]

with RBF, does the sender have the ability to completely change the destination address back to himself?

What's your problem with that?  It's his money until it's not.

Oh, Bitcoin is not a real-time system in spite of years of propaganda trying to make it so?  How sad.  I think I'm going to cry.

whoosh.  completely over your head, isn't it?

the only reason a vendor has the confidence to let someone walk out the store with a cup of coffee instantly is that the tx is irreversible for the most part.  by forcing RBF, now the vendor has to stop everything else he's doing, like serving MORE cups of coffee, to watch that the buyer doesn't walk out of the store before receiving 1 confirmation. 

you'd make a great marketing strategist. 

BTW, iCEBREAKER, thanks for getting me to finally look up what the Dunning-Kruger effect was by applying it to Frap.doc here.  nAILED-It.

[cypherdoc]

with RBF, does the sender have the ability to completely change the destination address back to himself?

What's your problem with that?  It's his money until it's not.

Oh, Bitcoin is not a real-time system in spite of years of propaganda trying to make it so?  How sad.  I think I'm going to cry.

whoosh.  completely over your head, isn't it?

the only reason a vendor has the confidence to let someone walk out the store with a cup of coffee instantly is that the tx is irreversible for the most part.  by forcing RBF, now the vendor has to stop everything else he's doing, like serving MORE cups of coffee, to watch that the buyer doesn't walk out of the store before receiving 1 confirmation.  

you'd make a great marketing strategist.  

BTW, iCEBREAKER, thanks for getting me to finally look up what the Dunning-Kruger effect was by applying it to Frap.doc here.  nAILED-It.

typical response from you.

having no counter argument, you default resort to ad hominem.

[Peter R]

There are two versions of replace-by-fee: "first-seen safe" and "full."  Peter Todd is pushing "full" replace-by-fee which breaks the security of zero-confirm transactions.  When F2Pool added replace-by-fee, they initially used the full version, but then switched to the first-seen safe version when the recognized the problem.

Which version do you think is good?  What does replace-by-fee do that child-pays-parent can't?

I am not an expert on the technicals, I thought it would fuck up zero conf anyway. You spend the same output with an increased fee. Miners can implement whatever selection criteria they want,  as has always been. You could complain, but when something is buried deep in the blockchain there is not much you can do. Making rules would change bitcoin, in my opinion. Anyway, not expert, I like to drivel on the economics side, and I think it is useful, but not helping with pile-ups, and not needed.

It sounds like you like the idea of being able to increase a transaction's effective fee to get it "unstuck" if necessary.  If that can be accomplished in a way that doesn't break first-seen-safe, would you consider that preferable?

Can someone explain to me how full-RBF offers any benefit over child-pays-parent or FFS-RBF?  As far as I can tell, the only "benefit" is that it breaks zero-confirm transactions and, like sticking with the 1 MB limit, provides impetus to use off-chain solutions.  

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

I think tvbcof means to say Bitcoin wasn't ever going to be useful for point of sales. (I assume that means Bitcoin by itself.)

In the interest of not repeating old points, this is what Hearn has to say on this: https://medium.com/@octskyward/replace-by-fee-43edd9a1dd6d