Bitcoin Forum
December 05, 2016, 04:52:37 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 ... 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 1410 1411 1412 1413 1414 1415 1416 1417 1418 1419 1420 1421 1422 1423 1424 1425 1426 1427 1428 1429 1430 1431 1432 1433 1434 1435 1436 1437 1438 1439 1440 1441 1442 1443 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1804678 times)
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 30, 2015, 05:55:39 PM
 #27841


They cannot handle 11.6MB unconfirmed transactions then how will they handle 20 MB blocks with 200 MB uncorfirmed transactions ?

It would be dramatically more expensive to spam the network with 200 MB of transactions.

It will be more expensive with 1 MB block. The bigger block the cheaper spam.

no,look at the current spam attacks.  

they are small tx's with the minimum fee.  if that spam wants to actually get included in the next block or 2, it has to increase the amount of fees it pays which would cause the attack budget to skyrocket.
1480956757
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480956757

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480956757
Reply with quote  #2

1480956757
Report to moderator
1480956757
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480956757

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480956757
Reply with quote  #2

1480956757
Report to moderator
1480956757
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480956757

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480956757
Reply with quote  #2

1480956757
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1480956757
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480956757

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480956757
Reply with quote  #2

1480956757
Report to moderator
1480956757
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480956757

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480956757
Reply with quote  #2

1480956757
Report to moderator
1480956757
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480956757

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480956757
Reply with quote  #2

1480956757
Report to moderator
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1974


View Profile
June 30, 2015, 05:58:44 PM
 #27842


Fantastic!  Some incentive to deal with memory exhaustion (which is hardly an unheard of problem in computer-land.)

If I were doing a system from scratch, one would have to do several things (with analogs taken from the real world.)

  • pay to get in (e.g., a ticket at the festival gate.  Some sort of real infrastructure support as opposed to useless SPV wallet 'support'.)
  • pay to get in the queue (e.g., to get a _chance_ to buy your cheese-dog.)
  • pay at least enough for the raw materials an labor for your cheese-dog when you get through the queue.
  • periodically clense the queue of those who, for whatever reason, not making sufficient progress.

Of course if Bitcoin had been designed like that from the get-go, it would not have gotten to first base.  It needed a pretty face to attract the following of Utopians such as fap.doc and the multitude of other mouth-breathers that got the system going.

Now we are at a point where there can safely be free cheese-dogs for all in the form of sidechains.  That means that the backing store can safely eject the welfare bums and they won't starve to death.  Very humanitarian.

you being a socialist, of course you come up with these bizarre conclusions that disadvantage the masses.

I very much want people to be able to use distributed crypto-currencies which is, I'm sure, left over from my socialist days.

As a practical matter, it is not necessary nor desirable to serve every hungry mouth with caviar on a silver platter (which they can take home and put in their own cabinet.)  Even the most impractical of the socialist dreamers would never entertain an idea so stupid.


the ideal situation would be that there is NO LIMIT.  this would give miners the incentive to filter spam based on their own internal analyses that the core devs can't possibly ever factor in, and then construct block sizes accordingly with the assistance of user tx fee feedback.  in other words, a free market that gets the core dev apparatchiks out of the way.

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.


cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 30, 2015, 06:03:16 PM
 #27843

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.
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 938



View Profile
June 30, 2015, 06:17:10 PM
 #27844


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?

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

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 30, 2015, 06:19:38 PM
 #27845

we are consistently above the 2.3 TPS level that the Tradeblock ppl have defined as the level where the network experiences delays.

from Tradeblock:

(2): It appears transaction confirmation will begin to experience notable delays at roughly 2.3 TPS – the rate at which average transaction processing time begins to exceed 1 block.

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 30, 2015, 06:24:10 PM
 #27846

Go India!

https://twitter.com/unocoin/status/615866780905422848

more new users. 
Zangelbert Bingledack
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1022


View Profile
June 30, 2015, 06:35:17 PM
 #27847

remember that, if i'm right, and full blocks are indicating additional incremental demand due to currency crises, this is going to be a more regular thing.  this is what we've theorized about for years.  the network HAS to be ready if you want to Moon.

1MB isn't going to cut it.  right now, unconf tx's are now up to 10000 with now >5TPS delays.

To be clear, I agree. Smoothly adjusting fees are another tool in the scaling toolbox, though, and should be ready for use as well. Where we're going, a 8 or 20x increase all by itself might not cut it. I'm eyeing a 500x price increase for the next bubble (peak, crashing afterward to 5-10x lower: ~$10-20K/BTC), which will mean a pretty big increase in transaction volume and may overrun even the 20MB blocks if we don't even have a fee market up yet.

We need as many scaling solutions in place as possible to enable the next bull run.

The nice thing about this debate is it's incentivizing them all. I'm confident we'll have the blocksize cap increase, hopefully in advance and not as a reaction to a stalled rally, but also a lot of other things. It's worth pushing against the small-blockers not because they have any real power to stop the increase, but because it lights a fire under them to do their part in making those optimizations to try to prove we can get by with smaller blocks. It's a futile effort on their part, but it ends up helping with large blocks, too.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 30, 2015, 06:45:48 PM
 #27848

remember that, if i'm right, and full blocks are indicating additional incremental demand due to currency crises, this is going to be a more regular thing.  this is what we've theorized about for years.  the network HAS to be ready if you want to Moon.

1MB isn't going to cut it.  right now, unconf tx's are now up to 10000 with now >5TPS delays.

To be clear, I agree. Smoothly adjusting fees are another tool in the scaling toolbox, though, and should be ready for use as well. (Where we're going, a 8 or 20x increase all by itself might not cut it.)

i'm not sure i get that.

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.
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1974


View Profile
June 30, 2015, 06:48:08 PM
 #27849


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.


cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 30, 2015, 06:51:14 PM
 #27850

how do u like dem apples?



rocks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1153


View Profile
June 30, 2015, 06:51:29 PM
 #27851


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
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714



View Profile
June 30, 2015, 06:55:44 PM
 #27852

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 30, 2015, 06:56:06 PM
 #27853


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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 938



View Profile
June 30, 2015, 06:58:04 PM
 #27854

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.  

Quote
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.

Quote
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.  

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

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 30, 2015, 06:59:12 PM
 #27855


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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 938



View Profile
June 30, 2015, 07:01:26 PM
 #27856

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.  

Run Bitcoin Unlimited (www.bitcoinunlimited.info)
Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714



View Profile
June 30, 2015, 07:02:29 PM
 #27857


Hardly. Read the comments.
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1974


View Profile
June 30, 2015, 07:02:56 PM
 #27858


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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
June 30, 2015, 07:03:47 PM
 #27859

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
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1974


View Profile
June 30, 2015, 07:06:05 PM
 #27860


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.


Pages: « 1 ... 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 1410 1411 1412 1413 1414 1415 1416 1417 1418 1419 1420 1421 1422 1423 1424 1425 1426 1427 1428 1429 1430 1431 1432 1433 1434 1435 1436 1437 1438 1439 1440 1441 1442 1443 ... 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!