Bitcoin Forum
November 22, 2017, 08:22:46 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [Torrent].
 
   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 ... 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 1444 1445 1446 1447 1448 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 2011216 times)
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1596



View Profile
July 01, 2015, 12:02:35 AM
 #27941

but also way more expensive for Bitcoin's growth prospects as new users get turned away or fed up.  Cripplecoin, in the long run, fails to the benefit of Blockstreams SC project.

you keep ignoring the fact that miners can filter spam; if they want.

Miners can't filter spam without also filtering valid transactions, because they are indistinguishable.

I don't really agree because spam is so much in the eye of the beholder. The only objective definition of spam is transactions paying a low fee and that can (and will) be filtered.
Join ICO Now Coinlancer is Disrupting the Freelance marketplace!
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
July 01, 2015, 12:03:18 AM
 #27942

but also way more expensive for Bitcoin's growth prospects as new users get turned away or fed up.  Cripplecoin, in the long run, fails to the benefit of Blockstreams SC project.

you keep ignoring the fact that miners can filter spam; if they want.

Miners can't filter spam without also filtering valid transactions, because they are indistinguishable.

I don't really agree because spam is so much in the eye of the beholder. The only objective definition of spam is transactions paying a low fee and that can (and will) be filtered.

That is my point too. Smiley

smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1596



View Profile
July 01, 2015, 12:04:40 AM
 #27943

absolutely.  look here.  guys reporting their bitcoind shut down from memory overload.  that sucks:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3bmb5r/stress_test_in_full_effect/csniofb

A design which forces every consensus making node to approve every transaction is stoopid. Any half brained engineer could realize this if they spent some time thinking about the issues.

It is, only if and when another design that accomplishes decentralized consensus without that requirement is published and peer reviewed.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 01, 2015, 12:05:13 AM
 #27944

but also way more expensive for Bitcoin's growth prospects as new users get turned away or fed up.  Cripplecoin, in the long run, fails to the benefit of Blockstreams SC project.

you keep ignoring the fact that miners can filter spam; if they want.

Miners can't filter spam without also filtering valid transactions, because they are indistinguishable.

I don't really agree because spam is so much in the eye of the beholder. The only objective definition of spam is transactions paying a low fee and that can (and will) be filtered.


some of the spam going on now is trying to use 0 fee, which is filtered by just about all miners.
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
July 01, 2015, 12:10:07 AM
 #27945

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

the ideal situation would be that there is NO LIMIT.

The Socialist is the one who tells us we can have everything we want for free. How has that worked out for Western civilization with socialism peaking every where with the sovereign debt collapses imminent with $200+ trillion of global debt.

some of the spam going on now is trying to use 0 fee, which is filtered by just about all miners.

And you want an unlimited block size  Huh

Now let's say I like to attack the network and I pay someone with a lot of hashrate to flood the network with blocks of unlimited size with 0 fee txns.

It is sorely obvious that you have inadequate skills in computer science and game theory.

smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1596



View Profile
July 01, 2015, 12:12:53 AM
 #27946

Now let's say I like to attack the network and I pay someone with a lot of hashrate to flood the network with blocks of unlimited size with 0 fee txns.

It's not zero fee if you are paying.
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
July 01, 2015, 12:19:53 AM
 #27947

Now let's say I like to attack the network and I pay someone with a lot of hashrate to flood the network with blocks of unlimited size with 0 fee txns.

It's not zero fee if you are paying.

I was going to comment about that, but I decided to see who wouldn't figure it out for themselves.

What is the distinction between the two? There is one.

iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1834


[LOL2X]


View Profile WWW
July 01, 2015, 01:52:08 AM
 #27948


Peter Todd on /r/buttcoin today:

Quote from: LondonInvestor
Why doesnt buttcoin start its own "stress test"?

I dont know anything about coding or servers or the intricate workings of bitcoin, (I'm just an ideas man), but it would be fun to be involved in setting up our own little "stress test" on the bitcoin network.
Obviously it's a waste of money, but so are a lot of things (at least it goes to the nice energy companies in China). (...)

Quote from: petertodd
Find me $5k and I'll make it happen in a big way, with proper tx creation scripts that don't just crash.
This is a serious offer.

Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/Buttcoin/comments/3bk12f/why_doesnt_buttcoin_start_its_own_stress_test/csn4nbz

 Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes

I think this demonstrates his level of hypocrisy here.

Peter is saying to the /r/buttcoin group that he is happy to implement a massive flood attack against Bitcoin for $5K in transactions (which is enough to generate 10s of millions of transactions very quickly), because he is confident that the network can handle this.

Which leads one to ask, if nodes the and current P2P network can handle a flood of several 10s of millions of transactions (as Peter is saying), why can't Bitcoin handle larger blocksizes again?



Handling larger blocks is fundamentally different than handling full blocks (which you dramatized as "a massive flood attack").


██████████
█████████████████
██████████████████████
█████████████████████████
████████████████████████████
████
████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
███████████████████████████
██████
██████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
█████████████
██████████████
████████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
██████████████████████
█████████████████
██████████

Monero
"The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine
whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy." 
David Chaum 1996
"Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect."  Adam Back 2014
Buy and sell XMR near you
P2P Exchange Network
Buy XMR with fiat
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
July 01, 2015, 02:15:32 AM
 #27949

One of the things that's missing from the block size debate is a usable threat model that would allow us to make objective and rational risk assessments of the various threats loosely defined as "centralization".

Before we know how worried we should be about larger blocks (potentially) reducing the number of nodes, we need to know exactly how an attacker benefits from this situation and what kinds of mitigating factors and/or countermeasures are applicable to each attack.

I haven't heard any kind of analysis along those lines yet.
thezerg
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


View Profile
July 01, 2015, 02:19:27 AM
 #27950


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?'

If you are the engineer you claim to be you know damn well how easy it would be to hide Bitcoin txns from a DPI DSP engine inside a HTTP image request, an audio or video stream, or of course via an encrypted connection.

Please don't post arguments that you know are illogical but you think will convince others.  It does not further the discourse.

thezerg
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


View Profile
July 01, 2015, 02:23:41 AM
 #27951

One of the things that's missing from the block size debate is a usable threat model that would allow us to make objective and rational risk assessments of the various threats loosely defined as "centralization".

Before we know how worried we should be about larger blocks (potentially) reducing the number of nodes, we need to know exactly how an attacker benefits from this situation and what kinds of mitigating factors and/or countermeasures are applicable to each attack.

I haven't heard any kind of analysis along those lines yet.

Yes, excellent point.  Because there is not much AFAIK.  Really, the power is in the hands of the miners (mining pool operators), which is already ironically very centralized relative to nodes.  Off the top of my head, fewer nodes would make it easier mount a Sybil attack to isolate a node or SPV client and then feed it incorrect data.
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
July 01, 2015, 02:32:17 AM
 #27952

Sort of cute:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3bpese/blocking_the_stream_the_blocksize_limit_debate_in/


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

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
July 01, 2015, 02:38:20 AM
 #27953

Here are some attacks which are affected by the number of nodes and/or miners and/or hashrate:

Attacker: Miners
Attack: Double spending. A miner can spend bitcoins on a product or service, then produce a block which invalidates the spend
Probability of success: 100% when the hash rate of the attacker exceeds the hash rate of the rest of the network
Severity: Number of bitcoins controlled by the attacker * number of attacks performed

Attacker: Miners
Attack: Denial of service. A miner can engage in selective censorship of transactions
Probability of success: 100% when the hash rate of the attacker exceeds the hash rate of the rest of the network
Severity: % success rate of censor identifying transactions they wish to block * value of the blocked transactions

Attacker: Nodes
Attack: Double spending. An attacker can defraud a target who is using an SPV wallet by providing them with invalid block headers which allow the attacker to pay the target with a transaction which references non-existant inputs
Probability of success: 0% unless the attacker can prevent the target from communicating with any honest nodes
Severity:  Number of bitcoins controlled by the attacker * number of attacks performed

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
July 01, 2015, 02:44:28 AM
 #27954


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.

You apparently lack an economics education on the concept of an undersupplied public good, i.e. free-of-speech doesn't guarantee that participants will act unselfishly to avert catastrophic outcomes.

tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2324


View Profile
July 01, 2015, 02:53:01 AM
 #27955


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

If you are the engineer you claim to be you know damn well how easy it would be to hide Bitcoin txns from a DPI DSP engine inside a HTTP image request, an audio or video stream, or of course via an encrypted connection.

Please don't post arguments that you know are illogical but you think will convince others.  It does not further the discourse.


In my experiments with steganography many years ago, I find it cuts down available bandwidth by orders of magnitude.  At that time it was unclear if it was even theoretically possible to hide things fully, although it was pretty clear that one could cause the waste of huge amounts of an attacker's CPU if you made him look.

The utility I used most was 'steghide'.  A while ago I looked it up again.  The source code was still available but it had not been changed in years.  In looking just now I notice that there is a French version of wikipedia which has an entry but I can find no English one and Google translate doesn't work on it.  Weird.  https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steghide

Actually, there is a point to be made that individual transactions could be hidden steganographically for spends no matter what the network transaction rate and it is kind of questionable whether the backbone itself could run fully steganographically hidden even with 1MB blocks under dedicated attack by funded and motivated attackers (who own the network.)

Ideally I'd like to see it practical for the backbone network to be operation fully on side-channels which make no use of the global internet at all.  In any real attack situation it is very unlikely that any infrastructure operator would enjoy the streaming class of network traffic that we know today.  That is another reason I would like to avoid developing a reliance on real-time behavior (or even ~10 min/conf expectations) or structured block formations and so on.  The Blockstream folks making mention of expectations in the days range gives me hope that they are designing for worst-case scenarios (which is exactly what I need to feel comfortable about storing significant value in Bitcoin.)

Edit:  BTW, I've got very little expectation that encrypted connections without government backdoors will survive indefinitely.  No design that I trust for longer duration work will make that expectation.


TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
July 01, 2015, 02:55:54 AM
 #27956


Here is the rebuttal in one image.


            /\  <------- privileged members of the TPTB that control the centralized public good
~~~~~~~~~~/    \~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~> water level globally
        /        \
      /            \             so much "spam" down here, choking off the entropy of miners
    /                \
  /       TPTB         \             everybody else down here transacting perhaps,
/                        \           but fully submerged in totalitarianism

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 01, 2015, 02:57:27 AM
 #27957

Here are some attacks which are affected by the number of nodes and/or miners and/or hashrate:

Attacker: Miners
Attack: Double spending. A miner can spend bitcoins on a product or service, then produce a block which invalidates the spend
Probability of success: 100% when the hash rate of the attacker exceeds the hash rate of the rest of the network
Severity: Number of bitcoins controlled by the attacker * number of attacks performed

Attacker: Miners
Attack: Denial of service. A miner can engage in selective censorship of transactions
Probability of success: 100% when the hash rate of the attacker exceeds the hash rate of the rest of the network
Severity: % success rate of censor identifying transactions they wish to block * value of the blocked transactions

Attacker: Nodes
Attack: Double spending. An attacker can defraud a target who is using an SPV wallet by providing them with invalid block headers which allow the attacker to pay the target with a transaction which references non-existant inputs
Probability of success: 0% unless the attacker can prevent the target from communicating with any honest nodes
Severity:  Number of bitcoins controlled by the attacker * number of attacks performed



How about this one:

Current situation where blocks are getting full from artificial 1MB cap:
Attacker: large miners like f2pool
Attack: spam network from one of its wallets to another. Drive up overall fees of regular users.
Success: 100%
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
July 01, 2015, 03:01:54 AM
 #27958

How about this one:

Current situation where blocks are getting full from artificial 1MB cap:
Attacker: large miners like f2pool
Attack: spam network from one of its wallets to another. Drive up overall fees of regular users.
Success: 100%

Sustainable for only until the cumulative the fees equals their net worth, i.e. unsustainable.

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 01, 2015, 03:10:36 AM
 #27959

How about this one:

Current situation where blocks are getting full from artificial 1MB cap:
Attacker: large miners like f2pool
Attack: spam network from one of its wallets to another. Drive up overall fees of regular users.
Success: 100%

Sustainable for only until the cumulative the fees equals their net worth, i.e. unsustainable.

F2pool is paying the spam to itself.
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
July 01, 2015, 03:12:41 AM
 #27960

Here are some attacks which are affected by the number of nodes and/or miners and/or hashrate:

Attacker: Miners
Attack: Double spending. A miner can spend bitcoins on a product or service, then produce a block which invalidates the spend
Probability of success: 100% when the hash rate of the attacker exceeds the hash rate of the rest of the network
Severity: Number of bitcoins controlled by the attacker * number of attacks performed

The actual severity can be much greater. There can be a run on the coin affecting all HODLers.

You apparently fail to grasp the wealth effect (i.e. that the mcap != amount of capital invested) is mostly built on CONFIDENCE.

Attacker: Miners
Attack: Denial of service. A miner can engage in selective censorship of transactions
Probability of success: 100% when the hash rate of the attacker exceeds the hash rate of the rest of the network
Severity: % success rate of censor identifying transactions they wish to block * value of the blocked transactions

Again you fail to account for out-of-band entropy. The ability to censor key transactions (even if a minute, undetectable %) could lead to immense power-structures, i.e. you threaten to censor the wealth of someone you need to coerce on major political outcome, e.g. a speaker of the house.

Attacker: Nodes
Attack: Double spending. An attacker can defraud a target who is using an SPV wallet by providing them with invalid block headers which allow the attacker to pay the target with a transaction which references non-existant inputs
Probability of success: 0% unless the attacker can prevent the target from communicating with any honest nodes
Severity:  Number of bitcoins controlled by the attacker * number of attacks performed

Yes Sybil attacks are another vector and there are lot more cases of attacks that you have not enumerated.

Pages: « 1 ... 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 1444 1445 1446 1447 1448 ... 1558 »
  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!