Bitcoin Forum
December 08, 2016, 02:33:37 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [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 ... 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 1457 1458 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1806244 times)
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1988


View Profile
July 04, 2015, 04:46:00 PM
 #28141

...
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.


1481207617
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481207617

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481207617
Reply with quote  #2

1481207617
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481207617
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481207617

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481207617
Reply with quote  #2

1481207617
Report to moderator
kazuki49
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 350



View Profile
July 04, 2015, 04:51:06 PM
 #28142

...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: 1512


Crypto is the separation of Power and State.


View Profile WWW
July 04, 2015, 04:59:18 PM
 #28143

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.

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
"Monero" : { Private - Auditable - 100% Fungible - Flexible Blocksize - Wild & Free® - Intro - Wallets - Podcats - Roadmap - Dice - Blackjack - Github - Android }


Bitcoin is intentionally designed to be ungovernable and governance-free.  luke-jr 2016
Blocks must necessarily be full for the Bitcoin network to be able to pay for its own security.  davout 2015
Blocksize is an intentionally limited resource, like the 21e6 BTC limit.  Changing it degrades the surrounding economics, creating negative incentives.  Jeff Garzik 2013


"I believed @Dashpay instamine was a bug & not a feature but then read: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg13017231#msg13017231
I'm not against people making money, but can't support questionable origins."
https://twitter.com/Tone_LLT/status/717822927908024320


The raison d'être of bitcoin is trustlessness. - Eric Lombrozo 2015
It is an Engineering Requirement that Bitcoin be “Above the Law”  Paul Sztorc 2015
Resiliency, not efficiency, is the paramount goal of decentralized, non-state sanctioned currency -Jon Matonis 2015

Bitcoin is intentionally designed to be ungovernable and governance-free.  luke-jr 2016

Technology tends to move in the direction of making surveillance easier, and the ability of computers to track us doubles every eighteen months. - Phil Zimmerman 2013

The only way to make software secure, reliable, and fast is to make it small. Fight Features. - Andy Tanenbaum 2004

"Hard forks cannot be co
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 04, 2015, 05:04:23 PM
 #28144

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: 1512


Crypto is the separation of Power and State.


View Profile WWW
July 04, 2015, 05:20:05 PM
 #28145

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

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
"Monero" : { Private - Auditable - 100% Fungible - Flexible Blocksize - Wild & Free® - Intro - Wallets - Podcats - Roadmap - Dice - Blackjack - Github - Android }


Bitcoin is intentionally designed to be ungovernable and governance-free.  luke-jr 2016
Blocks must necessarily be full for the Bitcoin network to be able to pay for its own security.  davout 2015
Blocksize is an intentionally limited resource, like the 21e6 BTC limit.  Changing it degrades the surrounding economics, creating negative incentives.  Jeff Garzik 2013


"I believed @Dashpay instamine was a bug & not a feature but then read: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg13017231#msg13017231
I'm not against people making money, but can't support questionable origins."
https://twitter.com/Tone_LLT/status/717822927908024320


The raison d'être of bitcoin is trustlessness. - Eric Lombrozo 2015
It is an Engineering Requirement that Bitcoin be “Above the Law”  Paul Sztorc 2015
Resiliency, not efficiency, is the paramount goal of decentralized, non-state sanctioned currency -Jon Matonis 2015

Bitcoin is intentionally designed to be ungovernable and governance-free.  luke-jr 2016

Technology tends to move in the direction of making surveillance easier, and the ability of computers to track us doubles every eighteen months. - Phil Zimmerman 2013

The only way to make software secure, reliable, and fast is to make it small. Fight Features. - Andy Tanenbaum 2004

"Hard forks cannot be co
TrueCryptonaire
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 784


Bagholder of Monero


View Profile
July 04, 2015, 05:24:15 PM
 #28146

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).

Bagholder
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 04, 2015, 05:28:33 PM
 #28147

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
 #28148

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: 1512


Crypto is the separation of Power and State.


View Profile WWW
July 04, 2015, 06:07:59 PM
 #28149

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.

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
"Monero" : { Private - Auditable - 100% Fungible - Flexible Blocksize - Wild & Free® - Intro - Wallets - Podcats - Roadmap - Dice - Blackjack - Github - Android }


Bitcoin is intentionally designed to be ungovernable and governance-free.  luke-jr 2016
Blocks must necessarily be full for the Bitcoin network to be able to pay for its own security.  davout 2015
Blocksize is an intentionally limited resource, like the 21e6 BTC limit.  Changing it degrades the surrounding economics, creating negative incentives.  Jeff Garzik 2013


"I believed @Dashpay instamine was a bug & not a feature but then read: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg13017231#msg13017231
I'm not against people making money, but can't support questionable origins."
https://twitter.com/Tone_LLT/status/717822927908024320


The raison d'être of bitcoin is trustlessness. - Eric Lombrozo 2015
It is an Engineering Requirement that Bitcoin be “Above the Law”  Paul Sztorc 2015
Resiliency, not efficiency, is the paramount goal of decentralized, non-state sanctioned currency -Jon Matonis 2015

Bitcoin is intentionally designed to be ungovernable and governance-free.  luke-jr 2016

Technology tends to move in the direction of making surveillance easier, and the ability of computers to track us doubles every eighteen months. - Phil Zimmerman 2013

The only way to make software secure, reliable, and fast is to make it small. Fight Features. - Andy Tanenbaum 2004

"Hard forks cannot be co
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 04, 2015, 06:19:07 PM
 #28150

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.
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1512


Crypto is the separation of Power and State.


View Profile WWW
July 04, 2015, 06:54:56 PM
 #28151

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.

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.

Large miners have been SPV mining for years.  IDK where you get this "sparingly" vs "regular" nonsense from.   Roll Eyes

That bit of tradecraft was only subject to public controversy last night because of a harmless fork, resulting from the collision between Ant/f2pool's optimized/risky implementation and BIP66's ostensible vs actual support %.

No matter how many times you breathlessly invoke violent "choking" imagery, the sky isn't going to fall if blocks are (predictably, given the infinity of demand and limitation of supply) full, causing tx feeds to approach a penny or two.

Quote
@pierre_rochard

Those who would give up essential Decentralization, to purchase a little temporary Adoption, deserve neither Decentralization nor Adoption.

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
"Monero" : { Private - Auditable - 100% Fungible - Flexible Blocksize - Wild & Free® - Intro - Wallets - Podcats - Roadmap - Dice - Blackjack - Github - Android }


Bitcoin is intentionally designed to be ungovernable and governance-free.  luke-jr 2016
Blocks must necessarily be full for the Bitcoin network to be able to pay for its own security.  davout 2015
Blocksize is an intentionally limited resource, like the 21e6 BTC limit.  Changing it degrades the surrounding economics, creating negative incentives.  Jeff Garzik 2013


"I believed @Dashpay instamine was a bug & not a feature but then read: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg13017231#msg13017231
I'm not against people making money, but can't support questionable origins."
https://twitter.com/Tone_LLT/status/717822927908024320


The raison d'être of bitcoin is trustlessness. - Eric Lombrozo 2015
It is an Engineering Requirement that Bitcoin be “Above the Law”  Paul Sztorc 2015
Resiliency, not efficiency, is the paramount goal of decentralized, non-state sanctioned currency -Jon Matonis 2015

Bitcoin is intentionally designed to be ungovernable and governance-free.  luke-jr 2016

Technology tends to move in the direction of making surveillance easier, and the ability of computers to track us doubles every eighteen months. - Phil Zimmerman 2013

The only way to make software secure, reliable, and fast is to make it small. Fight Features. - Andy Tanenbaum 2004

"Hard forks cannot be co
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 04, 2015, 07:14:18 PM
 #28152

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.

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.

Large miners have been SPV mining for years.  IDK where you get this "sparingly" vs "regular" nonsense from.   Roll Eyes

That bit of tradecraft was only subject to public controversy last night because of a harmless fork, resulting from the collision between Ant/f2pool's optimized/risky implementation and BIP66's ostensible vs actual support %.

No matter how many times you breathlessly invoke violent "choking" imagery, the sky isn't going to fall if blocks are (predictably, given the infinity of demand and limitation of supply) full, causing tx feeds to approach a penny or two.

Quote
@pierre_rochard

Those who would give up essential Decentralization, to purchase a little temporary Adoption, deserve neither Decentralization nor Adoption.

whoosh.

first, provide evidence that header sized blocks have ever been a consistently mined in the past.  the Mystery Miner from a few years ago came and died quickly.

and, it doesn't even matter.  the Chinese miners have already told everyone why they're using SPV defensive blocks.  they think 1MB is large.  you're arguing in the face of a fact.

and the problem is the 1MB.  
BlindMayorBitcorn
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728


Blockchain Theorist


View Profile
July 04, 2015, 07:35:21 PM
 #28153

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).

Don't quote trolls tho. He has his very own thread for racist ranting. Undecided

Forgive my petulance and oft-times, I fear, ill-founded criticisms, and forgive me that I have, by this time, made your eyes and head ache with my long letter. But I cannot forgo hastily the pleasure and pride of thus conversing with you.
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 938



View Profile
July 04, 2015, 07:45:05 PM
 #28154

One thing I can say for sure that last night's fork taught me, is that miner's will earn a greater profit on average if they are able to verify the blocks faster.  

Half-baked proof:

Let τ be the average time it takes to verify a new block, let T be the average block time (10 min), let H be the fraction of the network hashrate controlled by the miner, and let Pvalid be the probability than an unverified block is, indeed, valid.  Clearly, 0 < Pvalid < 1.

The fraction of time the miner does not know whether the most recent block was valid is clearly τ / T, which means the fraction of the time the miner does know is 1 - τ / T = (T - τ) / T.

For a given block height, assume three outcomes can occur for the miner: (1) he finds a block before he's verified the previous block, (2) he finds a block after he's verified the previous block, (3) he does not find a block.  Assume also that if he finds a valid block he receives the block reward*, unless he was mining on an invalid block (in which case he receives nothing).  

The expectation value of the miner's revenue is the expected revenue during the time he doesn't know, plus the expected revenue during the time he does know:

   <V> = (25 BTC) Pvalid H (τ / T)     +     (25 BTC) H (T - τ) / T
          
          = (25 BTC) H / T  [ T    -   τ (1 - Pvalid) ]

What this shows is that since the subtracted term, τ (1- Pvalid), is strictly positive, the miner's expectation of revenue, <V>, is maximized if the time to verify the previous block is minimized (i.e., if τ is as small as possible).  The limit, as τ -> 0, is

    limτ->0 <V> = (25 BTC) H

QED

How does this relate to the blocksize debate?

As the average blocksize gets larger, the time to verify the previous block also gets larger (assuming no other technical innovations).  This means that miner profitability begins to depend more heavily (than it does now) on how quickly they can verify blocks.  And since mining has thin profit margins, this means that miners will be motivated to improve how quickly their nodes can perform the ECDSA operations needed to verify blocks.  

Greg Maxwell once said that he wanted to launch an alt-coin where the proof-of-work was based on ECDSA verify operations.  The reason, he said, was the incentivize optimization of ECDSA libraries or even the development of custom ASICs to perform the work.  The analysis above suggests we can achieve something similar by increasing the blocksize and allowing normal market competition to do its thing.  

*For the sake of this argument, assume the probability of orphaning a valid block is zero (I don't think this assumption affects the current results but it makes the math simpler).  

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

Activity: 1302


View Profile
July 04, 2015, 07:56:52 PM
 #28155

I have a feeling that fiber (eu) and equities are going to rally hard on a grexit... Makes sense cause we still haven't hit our long term target and makes sense from a market perspective too.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 04, 2015, 08:02:47 PM
 #28156

the increased frequency of SPV mining has occurred precisely b/c of the more consistently filled 1MB blocks and as a deviant defensive strategy being employed to navigate that congestion.

otherwise, you'd have to be arguing that what once wasn't a problem with blocks <1MB have to now be occurring precisely b/c 1MB is a magic number at which blocks are deemed "too big". what is the chances of that?

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3c3emd/please_boycott_f2pool/css1oy1
sickpig
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106


View Profile
July 04, 2015, 09:31:47 PM
 #28157


The fork is now resolved.  Six blocks were orphaned resulting in a loss of ~100 BTC to F2Pool.  Rather good incentive for F2Pool to update their software for proper BIP66 support so this doesn't happen again!


since BIP66 has been activated only after 95% of the last 2k blocks was v3 blocks, it means f2pool already has produced BIP66 blocks before the incident, in fact last time I checked f2pool had ~20% of the total hashing power.

so by definition f2pool was BIP66 compliant before the fork.

the problem is that a lot of miners are "SPV mining", among them: f2pool and antpool

This is not quite true.  It's important we understand exactly what happened to prevent people from spinning this incident to strengthen their blocksize limit position.

Here's what happened:
   - BTC Nuggets mined block #363,731.  It was not BIP66 compliant.
   - F2Pool began mining on this block before they had validated its contents (SPV mining).
   - F2Pool should have orphaned block #363,731 as soon as they realized it was invalid.
   - However, F2Pool kept mining on this invalid block.
   - F2Pool hit a lucky streak and mined two more blocks (#363,732 and #363,733), pulling this invalid chain further ahead.
   - AntPool seemed to act similarly, and mined block #363,734 ontop of the invalid chain.
   - F2Pool quickly mined two more blocks on this chain (6 confs).
   - Finally, the rest of the network "pulled ahead" (the valid chain became longer) and F2Pool and AntPool finally orphaned their invalid chain.  



The incident was not caused by SPV mining for the few moments it takes to validate the latest block.  It was caused by F2Pool (and AntPool) never getting around to actually validating the blocks.  

sure you're right.

they kept SPV mining for six blocks in a row, and if you ask me they would had continued if the network didn't pulled ahead.

this means that their patched btc core was/is able to produce valid blocks, but didn' t validated any prev block whatsoever.

this SPV mining habit has to fixed, otherwise we risk to have this kind of incident every time a softfork is activated by mining vote.

another think to focus on is the number of full nodes that had discarded those 6 invalid blblocks i.e. the percentage of btc core with version >= 0.10.0

Bitcoin is a participatory system which ought to respect the right of self determinism of all of its users - Gregory Maxwell.
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 938



View Profile
July 04, 2015, 10:04:17 PM
 #28158

the increased frequency of SPV mining has occurred precisely b/c of the more consistently filled 1MB blocks and deviant defensive strategies being employed to navigate that congestion...otherwise, you'd have to be arguing that what once wasn't a problem with blocks <1MB have to now be occurring precisely b/c 1MB is a magic number at which blocks are deemed "too big". what is the chances of that?

Cypher, you're brilliant!

Evidence of an effective blocksize limit: no protocol-enforced limit required

In this post we show that, given a few simplifying assumptions*, the network will automatically enforce an effective blocksize limit.  This effective limit scales in an automatic fashion with improvements in technology, without requiring an explicit limit being enforced at the protocol level.  

Background:  We learned from last night's fork that miners are incentivized to mine "empty" blocks while they work to process the previously solved block.  This increases their revenue, as shown here.  However, this also means that the maximum possible value of the average blocksize is reduced in proportion to the frequency of these "empty blocks."  For example, if 10% of the blocks were guaranteed to be empty, the maximum value of the average blocksize would presently be 900 kB, rather than 1 MB.  We show that as the average size of the blocks increases, the percentage of empty blocks increases in direct proportion, thereby providing a counterbalancing force that serves to limit the blockchain's growth rate.  We will refer to the "maximum value of the average blocksize" as the effective blocksize limit.

Let τ be the time it takes to process a typical block and let T be the average block time (10 min). [CLARIFICATION: τ includes all delays between the moment the miner has enough information to begin mining (an empty block) on the block header, to the moment he's processed the previous block, created a new non-empty block template, and has his hashing power working on that new non-empty block].    The fraction of time the miner is hashing on an empty block is clearly τ / T; the fraction of the time the miner is hashing on a non-empty block is 1 - τ / T = (T - τ) / T.  We will assume that every miner applies the same policy of producing empty SPV blocks for time 0<t<τ, and blocks of size S' for t > τ.  

Under these conditions, the expectation value of the blocksize is equal to the expectation value of the blocksize on the interval 0<t<τ, plus the expectation value of the blocksize during the interval τ<t<T.

    Seffective = ~0 [(τ / T)]   +  S' [(T - τ) / T]          
                 = S' [(T - τ) / T]                          (Eq. 1)

The time, τ, it takes to process a block is not constant, but rather is assumed to depend linearly** on the size of the block.  Approximating the size of the previous block as S', we get:

    τ = k S'

where k is the number of minutes if takes to process on average, 1 MB of transactional data.  Substituting this into Eq. (1) yields the following equation:

    Seffective = S' (T - k S') / T
                 = S' - (k/T) S'2

This is the equation for a concave down parabola, as shown:



To find the maximum of this curve, we take its partial derivative with respect to S' and set it to zero:

   d Seffective /  d S' = 1 - 2 k S' / T = 0

Solving the above equation for S' gives

    S' = T / (2 k)

This (S') is the blocksize that maximizes the transactional capacity of the network.  Substituting this result back into our equation for the effective blocksize limit gives:

    Seffective = T / (4 k)

Some numbers:

Assume it takes on average 15 seconds*** to process a typical 1 MB block (k =0.25 min / MB).  Since T = 10 min, this means the maximum average blocksize (network capacity) is limited to:

    Seffective   =   T / (4 k)   =   (10 min) / (4 x 0.25 min / MB)
                   = 10 MB.

QED. We've shown that there exists a limit on the maximum value of the average blocksize, due to the time it takes to process and verify a block, irrespective of any protocol enforced limits.  


*There's a few other assumptions that I don't detail above, but it's Saturday and I'm enjoying the sunshine.
**Here we're also assuming that the amount of ECDSA verify operations in a block is roughly proportional to the block's size.  
***This is a guess.  We should estimate it by looking at the ratio of empty blocks to non-empty blocks produced by F2Pool.





**********UPDATE**********

…the last 27,027 blocks (basically since jan 1st 2015), f2pool-attributed blocks: 5241, of which coinbase-only: 139
For antpool, this is 4506 / 246.
See also: Empty blocks [bitcointalk.org]

Awesome!  Thanks!!

We can estimate the average effective time it takes to process the blocks, then, as

    τ ~= T (Nempty / Nnotempty)
      ~= T (Nempty / (Ntotal - Nempty))

F2Pool:

      ~= (10 min) x [139 / (5241 - 139)] = 16.3 seconds

AntPool:

      ~= (10 min) x [246 / (4506 - 246)] = 34.6 seconds

Run Bitcoin Unlimited (www.bitcoinunlimited.info)
vane91
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 87


View Profile
July 04, 2015, 10:25:52 PM
 #28159

yes unless someone starts developing a ASIC for block verification...


which will be actually good news!

 Grin
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 938



View Profile
July 04, 2015, 10:43:30 PM
 #28160

Looks like Noosterdam just submitted my post above to Reddit:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3c579i/yesterdays_fork_suggests_we_dont_need_a_blocksize/

Run Bitcoin Unlimited (www.bitcoinunlimited.info)
Pages: « 1 ... 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 1457 1458 ... 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!