Bitcoin Forum
May 25, 2019, 02:47:14 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.18.0 [Torrent] (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
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 ... 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 1459 1460 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 2028356 times)
TheRealSteve
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686
Merit: 500

FUN > ROI


View Profile
July 05, 2015, 01:25:56 PM
 #28181

( seeing as I was poking the bear anyway: Bitcoin Block sizes and # of transactions by pool attr [imgur.com album] )

GET 25 FREE SPINS AT REGISTRATION
GET 100% BONUS ON FIRST DEPOSIT
PLAY NOW
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1558795634
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1558795634

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1558795634
Reply with quote  #2

1558795634
Report to moderator
pönde
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 306
Merit: 109


View Profile
July 05, 2015, 02:24:36 PM
 #28182

I think it is correct to invest small amounts in many promising, +EV projects, Bitcoin and Monero (and Newcoin) included.

What are +EV projects? What is Newcoin?
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002



View Profile
July 05, 2015, 05:20:24 PM
 #28183

right back at it:

Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162
Merit: 1007



View Profile
July 05, 2015, 05:34:29 PM
 #28184

Peter is looking at the system as a black box and analyzing its emergent properties.  Gmax is looking inside the box.  We need to resolve the contradiction.

Thanks for pointing out the difference between the black-box approach and "looking inside the box."  I think the black box approach is useful because it forces us to consider the actual behaviour of the complete system, and then ask if our understanding of the inner pieces make sense given our observations. 

The other thing is that in my model, τ, is more properly the time delay between when the miner has enough information to begin mining on the previous blockheader, and when he has fully verified the previous block, created a new non-empty block to mine on, and sent the block template for that non-empty block to his hash power to begin working on it.  Gmax was only considering one component of this time delay.  

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

Activity: 1400
Merit: 1006



View Profile WWW
July 05, 2015, 05:43:22 PM
 #28185

Thanks for pointing out the difference between the black-box approach and "looking inside the box."  I think the black box approach is useful because it forces us to consider the actual behaviour of the complete system, and then ask if our understanding of the inner pieces make sense given these measurements.
The #bitcoin-wizards have fallen into that trap before, when the btcd team announced the results of their benchmarking on large simnet blocks.

Their complete system measurements were quite a bit slower than what the individual component microbenchmarks suggested.

If you look at the comments made regarding their blog post, you'll see the same dynamic playing out as is here.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002



View Profile
July 05, 2015, 06:28:37 PM
 #28186

ok, i couldn't but help notice the contradiction:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3c579i/yesterdays_fork_suggests_we_dont_need_a_blocksize/cssz5ea

awaiting a response.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002



View Profile
July 05, 2015, 06:30:53 PM
 #28187

Conclusion: As the average blocksize gets larger, the time to verify the previous block also gets larger. This means that miners will be motivated to improve how quickly their nodes can perform the ECDSA operations needed to verify blocks or that they will be more motivated to trick the system.

you missed the most important alternative of all. 

miners will pare down block sizes for maximum verification times and propagation times.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002



View Profile
July 05, 2015, 06:52:52 PM
 #28188

Don't get put-off from posting by Greg's feedback as it is easy to be silenced by someone-who-knows-best and let them run the show.
My big takeaway from his comment is how you got him into arguing from a position that big blocks are OK (handclap and kudos to you). In fact, I have learnt now that even 7.5GB blocks are today theoretically tolerable in at least one respect (validation where tx are pre-validated), although l suspect not in quite a number of other crucial respects.
Wasn't Gavin's doubling end-point 8GB in 2036? Effectively the same end-point!

I am reminded of Mike Hearn's words of wisdom:
Quote
Scaling Bitcoin can only be achieved by letting it grow, and letting people tackle each bottleneck as it arises at the right times. Not by convincing ourselves that success is failure.

One less bottleneck to expect with larger blocks.



ok, we've all been lead to believe up to now that validation of tx's had to occur twice by full nodes.  first, upon receipt.  second, upon receipt of the block.  this was crucial to the FUD scare tactic of decrementing full nodes and thus "centralization" we were getting last month by the BS core devs via the "large miner w/ superior connectivity attack on small miners".  now we here about this new mechanism of "pre-validation" that allows tx's to only have to be validated once upon receipt but not necessarily on receipt of a block?

what am i missing?
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002



View Profile
July 05, 2015, 07:02:59 PM
 #28189


I am reminded of Mike Hearn's words of wisdom:
Quote
Scaling Bitcoin can only be achieved by letting it grow, and letting people tackle each bottleneck as it arises at the right times. Not by convincing ourselves that success is failure.

One less bottleneck to expect with larger blocks.



exactly right.

sometimes it takes a hundred steps to walk across the street.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002



View Profile
July 05, 2015, 07:12:19 PM
 #28190

interesting, isn't it?

We will continue do SPV mining despite the incident, and I think so will AntPool and BTC China.

Another very good reason people should not mine on Chinese pools.  This is EXTREMELY bad for the Bitcoin network.


yes they will.  and do you blame them?  until the 1MB limit stops jacking up the unconf tx set thru either spamming or real demand, they can't be bothered to go thru the computation to order or pare down this larger than normal set.  SPV is the easiest, simplest way to get around constructing a full block that has the potential to be orphaned.

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002



View Profile
July 05, 2015, 07:18:14 PM
 #28191

We just need someone to figure out how to constantly feed them invalid blocks. Wink

I'm surprised to hear this from you, Holliday.  Can you explain why you think mining on the blockheader during the short time it takes to validate the block is bad?  It is clearly the profit-maximizing strategy, and I also believe it is ethically sound (unlike replace-by-fee).  

Are they mining on the blockheader during the short time it takes to validate the block, or are they simply skipping validation entirely?

Miners are supposed to secure the network, ehh? If they are just blindly mining on whatever they are fed, they aren't doing a very good job, are they?

i think they're reacting to the larger unconf tx sets being created as a result of the 1MB cap.  they don't want to have to both verify the full blocks coming thru nor construct efficient block sizes from that set.  if the cap was lifted, the unconf tx set should drop in size as faster validating miners can swallow the large unconf sets in one gulp and stuff it into a single block to keep the size of the set down thus discouraging further spamming and the deviant SPV behavior.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002



View Profile
July 05, 2015, 07:23:34 PM
 #28192

I see no problem with SPV mining while verifying the previous block. It would also make my above suggestion pointless.

Yes.

Moreover, I don't see why the time spent verifying is very significant. The vast majority of transactions would have been verified by a full node before being included in the block, and then it is just a case of checking the hash. The verification time for a block would then be insignificant relative to its download time.

Great point.  Does anyone know how Bitcoin Core currently works in this regards?  Is every transaction in a block (re-) verified?  Or are the transactions first hashed, and if matched to a TX in mempool not re-verified, thus saving time. 

but, but pwuille told us that a large block attack from a large miner would choke off small miners! 

don't forget that the top 5 largest miners in the world have inferior connectivity, not superior, like he told us.
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400
Merit: 1006



View Profile WWW
July 05, 2015, 07:44:04 PM
 #28193

I've learned loooooooooong ago that miners are bottom feeders who have no concept of the idea of protecting their investment.
This is a self-correcting problem.

Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162
Merit: 1007



View Profile
July 05, 2015, 07:46:28 PM
 #28194

and do you blame them?

Yes, it's called cutting off the nose to spite the face. I've learned loooooooooong ago that miners are bottom feeders who have no concept of the idea of protecting their investment.

Remember, there are two issues here: SPV mining empty blocks while you're validating the previous block, and what F2Pool appeared to do that caused the problem: never getting around to actually validating the previous block at all!  

I don't see why SPV mining empty blocks for the short amount of time it takes to validate the previous block is harmful to the network's health (I think it is actually helpful).  

On the other hand, I see what F2Pool did as hurtful to the network, and they were punished accordingly with a loss of 100 BTC.  

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

Activity: 1400
Merit: 1006



View Profile WWW
July 05, 2015, 07:51:53 PM
 #28195

Somebody is buying a lot of bitcoins today.
molecular
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2688
Merit: 1010



View Profile
July 05, 2015, 08:09:36 PM
 #28196

Somebody is buying a lot of bitcoins today.

I think it's at least 2 guys.

PGP key molecular F9B70769 fingerprint 9CDD C0D3 20F8 279F 6BE0  3F39 FC49 2362 F9B7 0769
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002



View Profile
July 05, 2015, 10:30:27 PM
 #28197

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.

i don't think so:

Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162
Merit: 1007



View Profile
July 05, 2015, 11:10:43 PM
 #28198

The banking crisis in Greece and the proposed 30% bail-in on balances of 8,000 euros got me thinking…There's actually a euro banknote printing facility run by the Bank of Greece in Athens.  Is there any chance, given the political mess, that the Bank of Greece directly prints banknotes to meet withdrawal demands, thereby ending the bank runs?  I realize this would be a no-no according to rules for eurozone membership but I wouldn't be surprised if such an idea gained popular support.  

According to ZeroHedge, it looks like there might be something to this Euro Banknote Printing Facility in Athens:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-07-05/greece-contemplates-nuclear-options-may-print-euros-implement-parallel-currency-nati

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

Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002



View Profile
July 05, 2015, 11:49:07 PM
 #28199

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.

i don't think so:



in case you hadn't noticed; we saw all sorts of these types of gap downs back in 2008. 

absolutely no chance to get out.
thezerg
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246
Merit: 1000


View Profile
July 05, 2015, 11:54:05 PM
 #28200

The banking crisis in Greece and the proposed 30% bail-in on balances of 8,000 euros got me thinking…There's actually a euro banknote printing facility run by the Bank of Greece in Athens.  Is there any chance, given the political mess, that the Bank of Greece directly prints banknotes to meet withdrawal demands, thereby ending the bank runs?  I realize this would be a no-no according to rules for eurozone membership but I wouldn't be surprised if such an idea gained popular support.  

According to ZeroHedge, it looks like there might be something to this Euro Banknote Printing Facility in Athens:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-07-05/greece-contemplates-nuclear-options-may-print-euros-implement-parallel-currency-nati

Very dangerous.   ECB could respond by claiming all Y series notes not legal tender.  Of course greece could presumably print other serial numbers easily.  And it could invoke the nuclear option where all greek overseas bank accounts are frozen and ultimately confiscated.  

Where is qoute about double txn validation?  Should be unnecessary...
Pages: « 1 ... 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 1459 1460 ... 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!