Bitcoin Forum
May 23, 2017, 04:54:16 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.14.1  [Torrent]. (New!)
 
   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 ... 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 1461 ... 1559 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1901801 times)
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
July 05, 2015, 10:10:10 AM
 #28201

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 would be 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, and looking up that the txn was previously mempool verified. The verification time for a block should be insignificant relative to its download time (unless it's a flood attack of new txns by a miner). Or am I missing something?

This was also implicit in my upthread point that the only justification for widespread 0 txn blocks would be bandwidth (propagation) delay.

IBLT purports to improve that by sending less impulse data when announcing the block, but it can't help if the steady state average rate of txns is greater than the bandwidth of the node and it can't stop the collusion of withholding transactions and flooding to force lower bandwidth nodes to be essentially SPV miners. That is why I say it is obfuscation of centralization.

1495558456
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1495558456

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1495558456
Reply with quote  #2

1495558456
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1495558456
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1495558456

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1495558456
Reply with quote  #2

1495558456
Report to moderator
TheRealSteve
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686

FUN > ROI


View Profile
July 05, 2015, 10:25:15 AM
 #28202

is there a way for you to tell what % of blocks have been full over the last 3 wks and compare that to prior going back to say Jan 1?

i'd include those in the 900+ and 720-750 kB range as being full.
Yes, though I'd have to wonder what's special about the last 3 weeks?  BTC China and Antpool increased their max block size a bit before that.  Could also use a different metric for 'full' - e.g. "N% of their apparent maximum".
( Some of the discussion since your post may have made this moot - let me know, I can whip something up regardless )

smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1414



View Profile
July 05, 2015, 10:25:35 AM
 #28203

Again I think the heart of it for me personally is that felt Monero doesn't really own anything, other than its own (perhaps smaller than Bitcoin's rather small) community and its refined implementation. In the sense that Python owns its syntax. If you create a JPython you are still helping Python. If you create a BitcoinJ, you are still helping Bitcoin. This is what I meant when I wrote the ecosystem was a "clusterfuck" (or let's say non-ideal). We had developers and communities fighting each other on the same protocol. It felt like copycoins vs. Bitcoin, except in this case none of them were the first and legitimate one.

Yes, that's what happens when you build something and try to launch it with a fraudulent 82% premine, a fake backstory, and an army of shills trying to make it appear popular and established. A clusterfuck. So that is (or more accurately was) a fair characterization, but not one of any of our making, and one that Monero has attempted (with a fair degree of success) to replace with a vibrant and successful community.

I disagree with your last sentence though. Monero is indeed the first legitimate cryptonote coin, which was launched as a minimal fork for the sole reason of getting rid of the fraudulent premine. (Also worth noting that the public face of the cryptonote team welcomed and invited forks, and even released a "coin fork creation kit"; https://cryptonotestarter.org)

Monero has always been a fully public open source project where everyone including the original developers has been (and continue to be) welcome to contribute. For all we know, some of the original developers (who are anonymous, as are many Monero contributing developers) have contributed. We know, for example, that during the chain fork attack last year, the cryptonote group sent a fix (though the community had already by that time developed one anyway).

Quote
One of the signs of leadership is being able to get everyone working together.

You can't necessarily ever get everyone working together. Nevertheless a great many people are indeed working together a year later, and that should say something about the leadership. When you count the core developers, contributing developers to the core project, people working on Monaro-related businesses such as MyMonero and Crypto-Kingdom, mining pools, various independent developers and other significant projects (such as the new Android mobile wallet) there are at least several dozen actual developers working on various aspects of it, along with many non-developers contributing in their own ways too.

I will leave to others whether that constitutes good leadership, but my opinion should be fairly obvious.
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
July 05, 2015, 10:27:32 AM
 #28204

Oh my pink face  Embarrassed. I just stumbled across what I wrote on June 30, 2011...I was obviously distracted, not focused, and naive about cryptography, just picked up some random forum post I landed on via Google. Actually I was correct, except my pessimism about the possibility for anonymity as a solution.

Quote
BitCoin is socialist and not (and no online curency can be) anonymous

http://www.bitcoin.org/

The fundamental problem is that any online currency either requires a centralized trust authority which is subject to govt regulation, or a majority vote of decentralized authorities which is just socialism and the antithesis of what makes gold and silver money (he who holds the gold makes the rules, no third party authority or majority vote). I had come to this conclusion a long time ago in the Precious Metals forum during my analysis of whether an online currency (potentially backed by gold and silver) could survive govt retribution.

BitCoin can be defeated by a hacker who puts a virus on a majority of computers using BitCoin, or a govt legislation that requires every computer sold to run a firmware program that defeats it (even if a minority will remove the firmware illicitly):
http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=12435.msg172811#msg172811

Thus the BitCoin algorithm has an attack vector, which encourages govt regulation of our computers.

No anonymity on the internet:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin#Anonymity

iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666


Crypto is the separation of Power and State.


View Profile WWW
July 05, 2015, 10:32:15 AM
 #28205

Am I being sensitive or is this an unnecessarily spiteful reply from Greg Maxwell?:

Quote
...
You've shown that you can throw a bunch of symbolic markup and mix in a lack of understanding and measurement and make a pseudo-scientific argument that will mislead a lot of people, and that you're willing to do so or too ignorant to even realize what you're doing.

He sounds bitter.

Oh boo hoo, poor Peter got mildly but most-deservedly flamed for spouting pseudo-scientific nonsense on stilts.  He'll be in therapy for years!   Roll Eyes

Gmax is just understandably impatient with his job being made harder by the Gavinistas' endless defamation, exaggerations, BS, and agitprop:

Quote
your analysis was off by orders of magnitude even in the most charitable interpretation
perhaps you should keep in mind that sharing a work which confirms political preferences with a largely non-technical crowd is not likely to bring useful additional criticism.

Gmax is not a punching bag; he's allowed to hit back when people accuse him of obstructionism for personal profit.  The Gavinista whining about 'ad hom' in that context is spectacularly hypocritical.  "I'll post the napkin pic illustrating Evil Blockstream's Snidely Whiplash scheme, then tsk-tsk Gmax for reacting with anything more than cool professional detachment...that'll show everyone what Awful People the core devs are!"

But nevermind that, let's all weep for poor barbequed Peter.  I'll send him some aloe vera lotion, care of the burn ward.   Cheesy

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 - Core GUI - 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


Warning Dash is a planned instamine, it wasn't an accident
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
July 05, 2015, 10:40:54 AM
 #28206

One of the signs of leadership is being able to get everyone working together.

You can't necessarily ever get everyone working together. Nevertheless a great many people are indeed working together a year later, and that should say something about the leadership. When you count the core developers, contributing developers to the core project, people working on Monaro-related businesses such as MyMonero and Crypto-Kingdom, mining pools, various independent developers and other significant projects (such as the new Android mobile wallet) there are at least several dozen actual developers working on various parts aspects of it, along with many non-developers contributing in their own ways too.

I noted that accomplishment recently in the Monero thread:

It is great to see all these people working together to accomplish a goal. I know it is a great feeling for the developers to reach a point of critical mass.

It does however have a certain level groupthink (non-objectivity) attached to it, and people tend to emotionally marry the investments they feel a teamwork attachment to.

I don't know why I am making this comment. Perhaps I am saying I envy or relish the feeling of being involved in a great team result,  but also those damn black swans. C'est la vie.

Be prepared for a black swan event though.

By everyone, I could mean a much wider scope than even Bitcoin's community now.

My point about wanting to differentiate as MJ did and not be Lebron is apropos. I still remember MJ's sophomore 63 points against Larry Bird and the Celtics. And his transformation to a team winner of 6 championships, with a ragtag group.

I aim big and fail often. Sometimes (3 times so far) I succeeded. You guys pursued the safe and timid route. And well describes the difference in our demeanor too smooth. I am a much more flamboyant risk taker. You are the quintessential diversified, steady handed capitalist. I have the traits of an artist, you the traits of an actuarial (well at least in terms of your investments, I don't know about your other hobbies). I respect your logic skills and often your level-headed judgement. But we can't tame an artist. They have an innate, incessant drive to create.

iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666


Crypto is the separation of Power and State.


View Profile WWW
July 05, 2015, 10:54:08 AM
 #28207

Rarely, do good critics make better artist. ATM Ben Jonson, the poet/critic is the only example I can think of, but that is more of a tie than him being better at one or the other.

Siskel had godawful shitty taste in Hollywood palaver and thus couldn't be expected to do any better himself.

OTOH, Charlie Brooker is a fantastically vicious UK media critic and social commenter.  He also makes superlative TV, like Dead Set and Black Mirror.

The 'conflict-of-interest' canard is an excuse by and for those who can't but presume to opine on whose who can.

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 - Core GUI - 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


Warning Dash is a planned instamine, it wasn't an accident
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
July 05, 2015, 10:54:48 AM
 #28208

But nevermind that, let's all weep for poor barbequed Peter.  I'll send him some aloe vera lotion, care of the burn ward.   Cheesy

Now I understand your username. The heat of the venom. I suppose if one can't take heat, get out of the kitchen?

BlindMayorBitcorn
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 868



View Profile
July 05, 2015, 12:36:44 PM
 #28209

Am I being sensitive or is this an unnecessarily spiteful reply from Greg Maxwell?:

Quote
...
You've shown that you can throw a bunch of symbolic markup and mix in a lack of understanding and measurement and make a pseudo-scientific argument that will mislead a lot of people, and that you're willing to do so or too ignorant to even realize what you're doing.

He sounds bitter.

Oh boo hoo, poor Peter got mildly but most-deservedly flamed for spouting pseudo-scientific nonsense on stilts.  He'll be in therapy for years!   Roll Eyes

Gmax is just understandably impatient with his job being made harder by the Gavinistas' endless defamation, exaggerations, BS, and agitprop:

Quote
your analysis was off by orders of magnitude even in the most charitable interpretation
perhaps you should keep in mind that sharing a work which confirms political preferences with a largely non-technical crowd is not likely to bring useful additional criticism.

Gmax is not a punching bag; he's allowed to hit back when people accuse him of obstructionism for personal profit.  The Gavinista whining about 'ad hom' in that context is spectacularly hypocritical.  "I'll post the napkin pic illustrating Evil Blockstream's Snidely Whiplash scheme, then tsk-tsk Gmax for reacting with anything more than cool professional detachment...that'll show everyone what Awful People the core devs are!"

But nevermind that, let's all weep for poor barbequed Peter.  I'll send him some aloe vera lotion, care of the burn ward.   Cheesy

I think this was a shot at Gavin Shocked

Quote
But would you prefer I no longer engage and support people on reddit, and rather play the role of an aloof figure head the way that many who do far less and yet receive far more respect do?

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.
thezerg
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


View Profile
July 05, 2015, 12:42:59 PM
 #28210

Am I being sensitive or is this an unnecessarily spiteful reply from Greg Maxwell?:

Quote
...
You've shown that you can throw a bunch of symbolic markup and mix in a lack of understanding and measurement and make a pseudo-scientific argument that will mislead a lot of people, and that you're willing to do so or too ignorant to even realize what you're doing.

He sounds bitter.

Oh boo hoo, poor Peter got mildly but most-deservedly flamed for spouting pseudo-scientific nonsense on stilts.  He'll be in therapy for years!   Roll Eyes

Gmax is just understandably impatient with his job being made harder by the Gavinistas' endless defamation, exaggerations, BS, and agitprop:

Quote
your analysis was off by orders of magnitude even in the most charitable interpretation
perhaps you should keep in mind that sharing a work which confirms political preferences with a largely non-technical crowd is not likely to bring useful additional criticism.

Gmax is not a punching bag; he's allowed to hit back when people accuse him of obstructionism for personal profit.  The Gavinista whining about 'ad hom' in that context is spectacularly hypocritical.  "I'll post the napkin pic illustrating Evil Blockstream's Snidely Whiplash scheme, then tsk-tsk Gmax for reacting with anything more than cool professional detachment...that'll show everyone what Awful People the core devs are!"

But nevermind that, let's all weep for poor barbequed Peter.  I'll send him some aloe vera lotion, care of the burn ward.   Cheesy

Gmaxes argument lives and dies on his assertion of 80ms block validation times.  We now have to go off and independently verify this.  Then we have to figure out the discrepancy between this number and the painfully slow sync times and 100% cpu use during sync.  This work may discover inefficiencies and result in optimizations that have nothing to do with the holy war going on.  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.

Regardless gmaxes argument was not a barbecue -- that would have happened if the math was flawed for example.  In fact gmax's "argument" is just another guy making an unsubstantiated (but likely true) contrary claim.  You know this because what if you run core and post "that's funny I am seeing 5 sec times"? What happens is gmaxes entire argument fails.

    Its sad that you can't tell the difference between an argument and an unsubstantiated claim.
TheRealSteve
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686

FUN > ROI


View Profile
July 05, 2015, 01:25:56 PM
 #28211

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

pönde
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 91


View Profile
July 05, 2015, 02:24:36 PM
 #28212

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



View Profile
July 05, 2015, 05:20:24 PM
 #28213

right back at it:

Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1036



View Profile
July 05, 2015, 05:34:29 PM
 #28214

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



View Profile WWW
July 05, 2015, 05:43:22 PM
 #28215

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



View Profile
July 05, 2015, 06:28:37 PM
 #28216

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



View Profile
July 05, 2015, 06:30:53 PM
 #28217

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



View Profile
July 05, 2015, 06:52:52 PM
 #28218

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



View Profile
July 05, 2015, 07:02:59 PM
 #28219


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



View Profile
July 05, 2015, 07:12:19 PM
 #28220

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.

Pages: « 1 ... 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 1461 ... 1559 »
  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!