Bitcoin Forum
December 14, 2017, 11:04:48 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 ... 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 1449 1450 1451 1452 1453 1454 1455 1456 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 2022643 times)
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 04, 2015, 03:05:09 PM
 #28101

...
look up the definition of a shill.

"Unprincipled lying scumbag" is, technically, more accurate.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=8389

2 day old account? 

Welcome to Bitcointalk!

Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1513249488
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513249488

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513249488
Reply with quote  #2

1513249488
Report to moderator
wallcandy
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2


View Profile
July 04, 2015, 03:08:53 PM
 #28102

^^I catch on quick Cool
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 04, 2015, 03:16:11 PM
 #28103

i remember yesterday afternoon noticing several more than usual 1 tx blocks coming thru.  i thought, "that's interesting".  

i think this shows us how lazy pool operators can be.  after all, it's not really their hashers doing all the work; they're just in the biz of coordinating it all at the pool level while collecting quite a fair amt of coin.  i don't mean to trivialize their work but it's a good thing that they now have to pick up their game by taking these losses.   it's also important, long run, to get them to establish a fee market with the users and stop depending on core dev to guarantee their profits for them via block caps.

i read an article the other day that one of the largest pools out there in China was making something like $30000/day in BTC which probably is an enormous profit given what they pay for electricity there from a combo of hydro and state subsidy.  given their cheap labor no wonder the top 5 pools are in China.  what we need is more competition and decentralization which makes it apparent why they wanted Gavin to limit his initial increase to 8MB; to sustain their high profits and market share.  without a cap, this core dev subsidy and guarantee goes away and mining pools will be forced to compete on a more equal level.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 04, 2015, 03:23:47 PM
 #28104

...
look up the definition of a shill.

"Unprincipled lying scumbag" is, technically, more accurate.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=8389

You owe a core developer 10BTC? Impressive!

what i find interesting is that for someone who claims to always be community minded, he's willing to take down his negative rating of me if i pay him back, and him only.  if i actually did something wrong in his mind, he shouldn't be willing to take it down ever.  there's a name for that.

oh, and i do have a screenshot of it.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 04, 2015, 03:28:05 PM
 #28105

...
look up the definition of a shill.

"Unprincipled lying scumbag" is, technically, more accurate.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=8389

You owe a core developer 10BTC? Impressive!

what i find interesting is that for someone who claims to always be community minded, he's willing to take down his negative rating if i pay him back, and him only.  if i actually did something wrong in his mind, he shouldn't be willing to take it down ever.  there's a name for that.

oh, and i do have a screenshot of it.

I noticed that too...

actually, there's 2 names for what's he's done.

one, from a moral standpoint, and one from a legal standpoint.  i'll let you figure out what those names are.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 04, 2015, 03:38:41 PM
 #28106

 there's a name for that.

*Mercenary?  
Which invalidates his claims, leaving you as pure as the driven snow. Naturally.

5 day old account?

Welcome to BitcoinTalk!

i'd love for all the new troll accts to keep pushing my message to the top of the Spec Forum.  bring it on.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 04, 2015, 03:44:10 PM
 #28107

so to summarize, block size caps introduce all sorts of deviant and compensatory economic and social behavior. why?  b/c the caps are by definition, centrally planned by core dev.  they can't possibly figure out all the deviant behavior that will result from their actions, no matter how well intentioned.

only by lifting the cap will the free market forces btwn the actual involved economic actors be allowed to play out.  and that is btwn the miners and the users as they negotiate fees based on their own proprietary internal data, analyses, and motivations.  

and yes, they are more than capable of being able to figure out latency limits; if they aren't, they go out of business.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 04, 2015, 03:52:56 PM
 #28108

 there's a name for that.

*Mercenary?  
Which invalidates his claims, leaving you as pure as the driven snow. Naturally.

5 day old account?

Welcome to BitcoinTalk!

i'd love for all the new troll accts to keep pushing my message to the top of the Spec Forum.  bring it on.

Interesting approach -- ignore the the message and discredit the messenger Undecided

there's a name for that.


that's b/c your message is intentionally incomplete and misleading as your 5 day old acct demonstrates. 

you ignore my half of the story.  might i remind you that a verdict has not been rendered.  i believe the allegations have no merit.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 04, 2015, 04:15:37 PM
 #28109

i remember yesterday afternoon noticing several more than usual 1 tx blocks coming thru.  i thought, "that's interesting".  

i think this shows us how lazy pool operators can be.  after all, it's not really their hashers doing all the work; they're just in the biz of coordinating it all at the pool level while collecting quite a fair amt of coin.  i don't mean to trivialize their work but it's a good thing that they now have to pick up their game by taking these losses.   it's also important, long run, to get them to establish a fee market with the users and stop depending on core dev to guarantee their profits for them via block caps.

i read an article the other day that one of the largest pools out there in China was making something like $30000/day in BTC which probably is an enormous profit given what they pay for electricity there from a combo of hydro and state subsidy.  given their cheap labor no wonder the top 5 pools are in China.  what we need is more competition and decentralization which makes it apparent why they wanted Gavin to limit his initial increase to 8MB; to sustain their high profits and market share.  without a cap, this core dev subsidy and guarantee goes away and mining pools will be forced to compete on a more equal level.

i think it's worth emphasizing that the primary motive for a non-economic spammer is to disrupt user growth. certainly new users, but even existing users who get fed up with stuck unconf tx's.  it's the non-economic spammer that we need to be worrying about and focus on for solutions.  user growth is what will cause Bitcoin to square according to Metcalfe's Law.

w/o a cap on block size, this type of spammer becomes powerless to effect user growth as tx's remain affordable and reliable.  no limit takes the user out of the equation.  and the solution to the latency question is that miners have the freedom to choose block sizes based on user feedback.  and they will to prevent orphans and to stay profitable.

this recent disruption from the 1MB choke has disrupted all sorts of wallets and users as tx's now become unreliable.  what more evidence do we need for the increase in the limit?
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 04, 2015, 04:33:09 PM
 #28110

i remember yesterday afternoon noticing several more than usual 1 tx blocks coming thru.  i thought, "that's interesting".  

i think this shows us how lazy pool operators can be.  after all, it's not really their hashers doing all the work; they're just in the biz of coordinating it all at the pool level while collecting quite a fair amt of coin.  i don't mean to trivialize their work but it's a good thing that they now have to pick up their game by taking these losses.   it's also important, long run, to get them to establish a fee market with the users and stop depending on core dev to guarantee their profits for them via block caps.

i read an article the other day that one of the largest pools out there in China was making something like $30000/day in BTC which probably is an enormous profit given what they pay for electricity there from a combo of hydro and state subsidy.  given their cheap labor no wonder the top 5 pools are in China.  what we need is more competition and decentralization which makes it apparent why they wanted Gavin to limit his initial increase to 8MB; to sustain their high profits and market share.  without a cap, this core dev subsidy and guarantee goes away and mining pools will be forced to compete on a more equal level.

i think it's worth emphasizing that the primary motive for a non-economic spammer is to disrupt user growth. certainly new users, but even existing users who get fed up with stuck unconf tx's.  it's the non-economic spammer that we need to be worrying about and focus on for solutions.  user growth is what will cause Bitcoin to square according to Metcalfe's Law.

w/o a cap on block size, this type of spammer becomes powerless to effect user growth as tx's remain affordable and reliable.  no limit takes the user out of the equation.  and the solution to the latency question is that miners have the freedom to choose block sizes based on user feedback.  and they will to prevent orphans and to stay profitable.

this recent disruption from the 1MB choke has disrupted all sorts of wallets and users as tx's now become unreliable.  what more evidence do we need for the increase in the limit?
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2352


View Profile
July 04, 2015, 04:46:00 PM
 #28111

...
look up the definition of a shill.

"Unprincipled lying scumbag" is, technically, more accurate.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=8389

You owe a core developer 10BTC? Impressive!

what i find interesting is that for someone who claims to always be community minded, he's willing to take down his negative rating of me if i pay him back, and him only.  if i actually did something wrong in his mind, he shouldn't be willing to take it down ever.  there's a name for that.

oh, and i do have a screenshot of it.

Paymium sat on more BTC than this of mine for quite a while.  They published a plan to return funds and lived up to it in my case.  Although I'm pretty sure the 'accident' was for the purpose of privatizing the unclaimed value contained in the Instawallet system, they didn't permanently injure me personally.  I called them out for their likely malfeasance as a service to the public, but did not give them a neg rating.

If cypherdoc collected, say, 10% of the money that people sent to Hashfast in compensation for his role as a feeder in the scam, it seems rational that the funds would be gladly refunded if he were unaware of the scammy nature of Hashfast, and forcible refunded if he was.  If he voluntarily disgorged the ill-gotten gains, one would not wish to give him a negative rating.  Indeed, just the opposite would be appropriate so withdrawing a temporary negative rating would be appropriate.

I don't watch very many mainstream movies, but in Silicon Valley we were hearded down to the theater to take a break regularly and I caught 'the Minority Report' that way.  I remember the ex-con eye doctor who made a living covertly replacing people's eyes.  Somehow the Hashfast goings-on reminded me of this work of fiction.


kazuki49
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 350



View Profile
July 04, 2015, 04:51:06 PM
 #28112

...shitcoin owners that could get large % of a coin emission for almost nothing and then pump and dump forever extracting bitcoin from victims, they can't do that with Monero, never been easy really and it pisses them off even more when they see how much potential Monero has. Its like rpietila said, its a coin that only the very rich already can own near 100K...

By arguing that XMR's mcap is miniscule, you are argue against your point. Your logical point can only be that it is relatively near to free to acquire some significant % of XMR's mcap, and afaics whether the proceeds of the wealth effect are distributed to the person who obtained coins cheaply via selling a premine or by selling coins bought or mined near to free, then what is the operative difference?

Freemarket, in 2010 everyone could buy thousands of Bitcoin for almost nothing, what hindered it was, besides being relatively unknown at that point in time, few people actually believed cryptocurrencies could be a thing, with Monero its almost the same, the difference being its swiming in a sea of shitcoins and not many can see its potential, its the second Cryptonote coin, the first being heavily premined, and it was launched with a MIT licence, there is absolutely no merit to claims Monero stole anything, its like saying Ubuntu stole code from Debian, or that Apple stole from FreeBSD, so even though Monero market cap is low, few people will actually bother buying a large stack because it is not a 100% certain bet, but its clear there is nothing close to Monero as Zerocash/Zerocoin is vaporware and Bitcoin sidechains are like dragons.
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1862


WARNING FOR NOOBS: Dash is an Instamined scam coin


View Profile WWW
July 04, 2015, 04:59:18 PM
 #28113

i remember yesterday afternoon noticing several more than usual 1 tx blocks coming thru.  i thought, "that's interesting".  

i think this shows us how lazy pool operators can be.  after all, it's not really their hashers doing all the work; they're just in the biz of coordinating it all at the pool level while collecting quite a fair amt of coin.  i don't mean to trivialize their work but it's a good thing that they now have to pick up their game by taking these losses.   it's also important, long run, to get them to establish a fee market with the users and stop depending on core dev to guarantee their profits for them via block caps.

i read an article the other day that one of the largest pools out there in China was making something like $30000/day in BTC which probably is an enormous profit given what they pay for electricity there from a combo of hydro and state subsidy.  given their cheap labor no wonder the top 5 pools are in China.  what we need is more competition and decentralization which makes it apparent why they wanted Gavin to limit his initial increase to 8MB; to sustain their high profits and market share.  without a cap, this core dev subsidy and guarantee goes away and mining pools will be forced to compete on a more equal level.

i think it's worth emphasizing that the primary motive for a non-economic spammer is to disrupt user growth. certainly new users, but even existing users who get fed up with stuck unconf tx's.  it's the non-economic spammer that we need to be worrying about and focus on for solutions.  user growth is what will cause Bitcoin to square according to Metcalfe's Law.

w/o a cap on block size, this type of spammer becomes powerless to effect user growth as tx's remain affordable and reliable.  no limit takes the user out of the equation.  and the solution to the latency question is that miners have the freedom to choose block sizes based on user feedback.  and they will to prevent orphans and to stay profitable.

this recent disruption from the 1MB choke has disrupted all sorts of wallets and users as tx's now become unreliable.  what more evidence do we need for the increase in the limit?

When you quote yourself it reminds me of TPTB.  In a bad way.   Grin

The 1MB limit has nothing to do with the transitory BIP66 fork.  That's not how it works!

Pools will spend more time insta-mining hacky 0-tx blocks in proportion to time spent verifying larger previous ones.

In situations like last night, ~1MB block processing times come uncomfortably close to producing problematic amounts of SPV blocks.  If nothing else, these little SPV forks present adversaries with a force multiplier by preoccupying large portions of the network.

Let's scale Bitcoin to 1MB, then worry about which bottlenecks to expand.


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

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
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 04, 2015, 05:04:23 PM
 #28114

i remember yesterday afternoon noticing several more than usual 1 tx blocks coming thru.  i thought, "that's interesting".  

i think this shows us how lazy pool operators can be.  after all, it's not really their hashers doing all the work; they're just in the biz of coordinating it all at the pool level while collecting quite a fair amt of coin.  i don't mean to trivialize their work but it's a good thing that they now have to pick up their game by taking these losses.   it's also important, long run, to get them to establish a fee market with the users and stop depending on core dev to guarantee their profits for them via block caps.

i read an article the other day that one of the largest pools out there in China was making something like $30000/day in BTC which probably is an enormous profit given what they pay for electricity there from a combo of hydro and state subsidy.  given their cheap labor no wonder the top 5 pools are in China.  what we need is more competition and decentralization which makes it apparent why they wanted Gavin to limit his initial increase to 8MB; to sustain their high profits and market share.  without a cap, this core dev subsidy and guarantee goes away and mining pools will be forced to compete on a more equal level.

i think it's worth emphasizing that the primary motive for a non-economic spammer is to disrupt user growth. certainly new users, but even existing users who get fed up with stuck unconf tx's.  it's the non-economic spammer that we need to be worrying about and focus on for solutions.  user growth is what will cause Bitcoin to square according to Metcalfe's Law.

w/o a cap on block size, this type of spammer becomes powerless to effect user growth as tx's remain affordable and reliable.  no limit takes the user out of the equation.  and the solution to the latency question is that miners have the freedom to choose block sizes based on user feedback.  and they will to prevent orphans and to stay profitable.

this recent disruption from the 1MB choke has disrupted all sorts of wallets and users as tx's now become unreliable.  what more evidence do we need for the increase in the limit?

again, no one is asking "why" the Chinese miners were SPV mining.  they told us flat out it was a defensive mechanism for what they perceive as large blocks.  whether large blocks are equivalent in reality to full 1MB blocks is irrelevant.  what's important is the miners's perception that they are as in this case.  evidence for this is that this SPV mining strategy was never an issue prior to the consistent filling of blocks that we are getting now.  all these 0 to 1 tx blocks are also coming after a series of full blocks.  i'm sure that the unconf tx set growth also may effects their decision to mine these 0 to 1 tx blocks.  even if they did validate the previous full block, i'm sure the expanded set of unconf tx's are not what they want to include in the next block (increasing the orphan rate) so they might be just saying "screw this, we'll just go for the 0 tx SPV block" straight away.
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1862


WARNING FOR NOOBS: Dash is an Instamined scam coin


View Profile WWW
July 04, 2015, 05:20:05 PM
 #28115

again, no one is asking "why" the Chinese miners were SPV mining.  they told us flat out it was a defensive mechanism for what they perceive as large blocks.  whether large blocks are equivalent in reality to full 1MB blocks is irrelevant.  what's important is the miners's perception that they are as in this case.  evidence for this is that this SPV mining strategy was never an issue prior to the consistent filling of blocks that we are getting now.  all these 0 to 1 tx blocks are also coming after a series of full blocks.  i'm sure that the unconf tx set growth also may effects their decision to mine these 0 to 1 tx blocks.  even if they did validate the previous full block, i'm sure the expanded set of unconf tx's are not what they want to include in the next block (increasing the orphan rate) so they might be just saying "screw this, we'll just go for the 0 tx SPV block" straight away.

Mining on headers wasn't a problem before and it isn't now, outside of Ant/f2's (intentionally?) broken/ lossy implementation.

The little BIP66 hiccup just drew attention to the existence of the trade-off between larger blocks and more frequent subsequent 0tx blocks.

We know "why" miners (whether Chinese or not) try to mine empty blocks while they verify incoming tx - because it is profitable.

Mining 0tx blocks helps cancel out orphans and if you don't do it, the other guys will.

Care to comment on the observed "95%" compliance in reality translating to 64%?

Please, try to spin that as A Good Thing for GavinCoin's desired 75% threshold.   Kiss


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

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
TrueCryptonaire
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1092



View Profile
July 04, 2015, 05:24:15 PM
 #28116

The banking crisis in Greece and the proposed 30% bail-in on balances of 8,000 euros got me thinking…



Fucking bankster jews, your father is Satan, for you are liars, and he is the father of lies, and when you propose the depositors money to be cut and extracted to fill your pockets, you are truly speaking of your father. - Jesus (paraphrased)




Calm down man.
There are bad people among the Jews who are bankers but also good ones (such as Ben Bernanke who basically saved US economy in financial crisis from civil unrests by starting aggressive quantitative easinings).
There are a lot of non-Jews as banksters, too. I guess in Finland the majority of banksters are goyim and our economy still sucks as the governement is licking the asses of EU with the situation with Russia.

The money comes from the Creator. The Jews are the chosen people of God. This you can read from the book you call "Old Testament".
If God chooses a people He is not acting like a mortal human being by changing His mind every time something not nice happens.

What comes to your comment on killing jeshu (your later post), even the New testament tells it was not the Jews who killed but Roman soldiers (despite according to the Torah Jeshu deserved to die since he violated the commandment of Shabbath which is compulsory for the Jews).
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 04, 2015, 05:28:33 PM
 #28117

again, no one is asking "why" the Chinese miners were SPV mining.  they told us flat out it was a defensive mechanism for what they perceive as large blocks.  whether large blocks are equivalent in reality to full 1MB blocks is irrelevant.  what's important is the miners's perception that they are as in this case.  evidence for this is that this SPV mining strategy was never an issue prior to the consistent filling of blocks that we are getting now.  all these 0 to 1 tx blocks are also coming after a series of full blocks.  i'm sure that the unconf tx set growth also may effects their decision to mine these 0 to 1 tx blocks.  even if they did validate the previous full block, i'm sure the expanded set of unconf tx's are not what they want to include in the next block (increasing the orphan rate) so they might be just saying "screw this, we'll just go for the 0 tx SPV block" straight away.

Mining on headers wasn't a problem before and it isn't now, outside of Ant/f2's (intentionally?) broken/ lossy implementation.

The little BIP66 hiccup just drew attention to the existence of the trade-off between larger blocks and more frequent subsequent 0tx blocks.

We know "why" miners (whether Chinese or not) try to mine empty blocks while they verify incoming tx - because it is profitable.

Mining 0tx blocks helps cancel out orphans and if you don't do it, the other guys will.

Care to comment on the observed "95%" compliance in reality translating to 64%?

Please, try to spin that as A Good Thing for GavinCoin's desired 75% threshold.   Kiss

you just made my point whether you realize it or not.

1MB full blocks ARE in fact causing problems at multiple levels ALREADY.  what you're seeing are compensation mechanisms that various actors are now forced to employ which is bad for the system in general as it is causing monetary losses; BTC block rewards for miners reversed, cancelled tx's for users and merchants.  how this is not obvious is beyond me.

as for the 95% compliance goof, i'll need more info for that one as that is more of a damnation for versioning in general than anything specific for Gavin's 75% proposal.  i thought that the versioning is displayed in blocks ONLY IF the miners have already deployed the software upgrade?
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 04, 2015, 05:56:05 PM
 #28118

so what we might expect to see now is this tx growth rate severely taper off or even decrease as confidence in the system decreases.  miners who were forced to employ compensatory mechanisms due to the 1MB choke will now become less confident in their ability to compensate to handle such a severe choke.  users and merchants, who have now been told to wait for 30 confirmations if they haven't upgraded lol, will lose confidence in the system.

all this from the repeated choking by 1MB blocks.  i have been detailing these defensive blocks for weeks now:

iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1862


WARNING FOR NOOBS: Dash is an Instamined scam coin


View Profile WWW
July 04, 2015, 06:07:59 PM
 #28119

Mining on headers wasn't a problem before and it isn't now, outside of Ant/f2's (intentionally?) broken/ lossy implementation.

The little BIP66 hiccup just drew attention to the existence of the trade-off between larger blocks and more frequent subsequent 0tx blocks.

We know "why" miners (whether Chinese or not) try to mine empty blocks while they verify incoming tx - because it is profitable.

Mining 0tx blocks helps cancel out orphans and if you don't do it, the other guys will.

Care to comment on the observed "95%" compliance in reality translating to 64%?

Please, try to spin that as A Good Thing for GavinCoin's desired 75% threshold.   Kiss

1MB full blocks ARE in fact causing problems at multiple levels ALREADY.  what you're seeing are compensation mechanisms that various actors are now forced to employ which is bad for the system in general as it is causing monetary losses; BTC block rewards for miners reversed, cancelled tx's for users and merchants.  how this is not obvious is beyond me.

as for the 95% compliance goof, i'll need more info for that one as that is more of a damnation for versioning in general than anything specific for Gavin's 75% proposal.  i thought that the versioning is displayed in blocks ONLY IF the miners have already deployed the software upgrade?

"Compensation mechanisms?"  Compensation for orphans - yes; compensation for full blocks - no.

The relative fullness % of the blocks doesn't matter; it's their absolute size which supervenes upon time to verify.

Miners mining on headers-only to create empty blocks isn't anything new.  You seem to have just suddenly discovered this trade-off activity exists, and are suffering under the delusion it has only recently begun in response to less-empty blocks.

Verifying 1MB blocks already tests the limits of what CPUs (and thus, as gmax points out, the BTC network) can handle.  8MB blocks will take 8X longer to process (or more, as RAM spills over to swap files), and we'll have 8X more empty blocks (or more, as the % of miners not SPV mining tends towards zero).

You're right that before we even consider GavinCoin's 75% proposal, we need more info on exactly how/why the "95% compliance goof" damns versioning in general.

This goof was a non-event, but then again BIP66 wasn't a controversial, drama and chaos inducing, partisan trench war à la GavinCoin.


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

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
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 04, 2015, 06:19:07 PM
 #28120

Mining on headers wasn't a problem before and it isn't now, outside of Ant/f2's (intentionally?) broken/ lossy implementation.

The little BIP66 hiccup just drew attention to the existence of the trade-off between larger blocks and more frequent subsequent 0tx blocks.

We know "why" miners (whether Chinese or not) try to mine empty blocks while they verify incoming tx - because it is profitable.

Mining 0tx blocks helps cancel out orphans and if you don't do it, the other guys will.

Care to comment on the observed "95%" compliance in reality translating to 64%?

Please, try to spin that as A Good Thing for GavinCoin's desired 75% threshold.   Kiss

1MB full blocks ARE in fact causing problems at multiple levels ALREADY.  what you're seeing are compensation mechanisms that various actors are now forced to employ which is bad for the system in general as it is causing monetary losses; BTC block rewards for miners reversed, cancelled tx's for users and merchants.  how this is not obvious is beyond me.

as for the 95% compliance goof, i'll need more info for that one as that is more of a damnation for versioning in general than anything specific for Gavin's 75% proposal.  i thought that the versioning is displayed in blocks ONLY IF the miners have already deployed the software upgrade?

"Compensation mechanisms?"  Compensation for orphans - yes; compensation for full blocks - no.

The relative fullness % of the blocks doesn't matter; it's their absolute size which supervenes upon time to verify.

large blocks=full blocks in this context; that's why the miners are compensating via SPV mining.  they said just that and the evidence is that they are doing what they said they'd do.
Quote


Miners mining on headers-only to create empty blocks isn't anything new.  You seem to have just suddenly discovered this trade-off activity exists, and are suffering under the delusion it has only recently begun in response to less-empty blocks.

of course, it's been done sparingly in the past; but now it has become a regular thing b/c for the first time, we have full blocks.

Quote

Verifying 1MB blocks already tests the limits of what CPUs (and thus, as gmax points out, the BTC network) can handle.  8MB blocks will take 8X longer to process (or more, as RAM spills over to swap files), and we'll have 8X more empty blocks (or more, as the % of miners not SPV mining tends towards zero).

once again, you assume we'll go to 8MB immediately.  no way.  only organic growth that will take time will take it that high.  and then, if we continue to have an artificial cap in place that causes full blocks to potentially become a reality, the spammers will once again identify an opportunity and target to disrupt user growth by causing the same shit they are now at the expense of very little spam in aggregate.
Quote

You're right that before we even consider GavinCoin's 75% proposal, we need more info on exactly how/why the "95% compliance goof" damns versioning in general.

This goof was a non-event, but then again BIP66 wasn't a controversial, drama and chaos inducing, partisan trench war à la GavinCoin.

you need an eye exam. b/c you are blind.  this type of confidence reducing event will continue to erode user and merchant growth rate.  not to mention the price.  

and this just proves my contention that the chokers will never be able to identify when we are being choked.
Pages: « 1 ... 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 1449 1450 1451 1452 1453 1454 1455 1456 ... 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!