Bitcoin Forum
December 10, 2016, 01:21:56 AM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   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 ... 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 1462 1463 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1807379 times)
gmaxwell
Staff
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2030



View Profile
July 06, 2015, 04:40:08 AM
 #28241

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
[...]
what am i missing?
Where I expicitly pointed out to you in many places, in excruciating detail, that this was not at all the case??  https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/39tgno/letting_miners_vote_on_the_maximum_block_size_is/cs6rek5?context=3   You seemed so happy to argue with it before, has your memory vanished now that you don't think it would be convient for you?

what's interesting is that we've never seen it done to the degree it is now.  we had the Mystery Miner a few years ago but he stopped it pretty quick.  also, despite many upgrades added to the protocol previously, we've never had a fork as a result of SPV mining before either.  what's different this time is the consistently full blocks and the fact that Wang Chun told us they create SPV blocks in response to large blocks as a defense.  it seems they consider full blocks large blocks so the excessive SPV mining created last nights fork in light of BIP66 and the upgrade to 0.10.x.  so in that sense, the 1MB cap is the direct cause of what is happening.  

The incohearence in some of these posts is so foaming so thick that it's oozing out and making the floor slick; careful-- you might slip and mess up your future as "the LeBron James of the Bitcoin world" (as your attorney decribed you (18:30), under oath, to a federal judge as part of litigation related to your possession of 3000 BTC taken primarly from members of this forum.).

As miners have created larger blocks F2Pool expirenced high orphaning (>4% according to them); they responded by adding software to mine without transfering or verifying blocks to avoid delays related to transfering and processing block data. Contrary to your claim-- the blocksize limit stems the bleeding here. Their issue is that large blocks take more time to transfer/handle and that they're falling behind as a result. Making blocks _bigger_ would not help this problem, it would do the _opposite_. If a miner wanted to avoid any processing of transaction backlog they'd simply set their minimum fee high and they'd never even mempool the large backlog.

Reasonable minds can differ on the relative importance of difference considerations, but when you're falling all over yourself to describe evidence against your position as support of it-- redefining F2pools crystal clear and plain descption of "large blocks" as their source of problems with the technically inexplicable "full" that you think supports your position, it really burns up whatever credibility you had left. That you can get away with it in this thread without a loud wall of "WTF" just shows what a strange echochamber it has become.
1481332916
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481332916

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481332916
Reply with quote  #2

1481332916
Report to moderator
1481332916
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481332916

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481332916
Reply with quote  #2

1481332916
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481332916
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481332916

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481332916
Reply with quote  #2

1481332916
Report to moderator
1481332916
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481332916

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481332916
Reply with quote  #2

1481332916
Report to moderator
1481332916
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481332916

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481332916
Reply with quote  #2

1481332916
Report to moderator
lebing
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1274


Bitcoin: The honey badger of currencies


View Profile
July 06, 2015, 04:44:27 AM
 #28242


Bro, do you even blockchain?
-E Voorhees
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 938



View Profile
July 06, 2015, 04:49:23 AM
 #28243

what's interesting is that we've never seen it done to the degree it is now.  we had the Mystery Miner a few years ago but he stopped it pretty quick.  also, despite many upgrades added to the protocol previously, we've never had a fork as a result of SPV mining before either.  what's different this time is the consistently full blocks and the fact that Wang Chun told us they create SPV blocks in response to large blocks as a defense.  it seems they consider full blocks large blocks so the excessive SPV mining created last nights fork in light of BIP66 and the upgrade to 0.10.x.  so in that sense, the 1MB cap is the direct cause of what is happening. 

I'm trying to understand your thinking on this matter.  It makes perfect sense to me that we'd see an increase in empty blocks as the average block size rises.  It seems you think the frequency of empty blocks would also actually decrease if we raised the limit (assuming the rate of transactions stayed the same).  Is this an accurate assessment of what you're saying?  Can you explain again why you think that? 

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

Activity: 938



View Profile
July 06, 2015, 05:58:24 AM
 #28244

Bitcoin sits at a strange intersection of computer science, mathematics, economics and sociology, and we can all probably learn a bit from each other.  Communication is hard, especially across disciplines.  



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

Activity: 728


Blockchain Theorist


View Profile
July 06, 2015, 06:01:36 AM
 #28245

Bitcoin sits at a strange intersection of computer science, mathematics, economics and sociology, and we can all probably learn a bit from each other.  Communication is hard, especially across disciplines.  




+1

The principle of charity should always guide us.

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.
gmaxwell
Staff
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2030



View Profile
July 06, 2015, 06:32:13 AM
 #28246

Bitcoin sits at a strange intersection of computer science, mathematics, economics and sociology, and we can all probably learn a bit from each other.  Communication is hard, especially across disciplines.  
Thats quite fair and true.

As an aside, today's 3 block invalid chain reorg included a 'v3' block on the invalid fork which contained a lot of transactions. Which may suggest someone is SPV mining while including transactions (something I'd pointed out was possible previously).
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
July 06, 2015, 07:17:55 AM
 #28247

That you can get away with it in this thread without a loud wall of "WTF" just shows what a strange echochamber it has become.

Oh, there was plenty of WTF when I read his last post, and some prior to that when he was trying to make a similar argument, but it's pretty clear that he's made up his mind and no amount of WTFing is going to change it.

+63

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
July 06, 2015, 07:46:30 AM
 #28248

Questions: Why couldn't RBF be improved so that same inputs must always pay to the same outputs when txn is replaced, except that any increases in the output values (not change in output address allowed) for increasing the fee must be matched by increase inputs? Thus the buyer can no longer steal value from the merchant which already delivered the goods. Wouldn't that resolve the complaint against RBF?

And wouldn't that then remove my argument that fixed block size limit is incompatible with 0-conf txns? (my argument was first-seen must be overruled by fee per KB when block size is a scarce resource).


Ah I realized my error. The transaction could be forever replaced. Okay instead, how about designating another UXTO address that can be exclusively drawn from? Ah but that would mean only the buyer can RBF which is not fair if the seller is the one harmed (otherwise seller could steal value from buyer).

ErisDiscordia
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 893


Imposition of ORder = Escalation of Chaos


View Profile
July 06, 2015, 08:14:31 AM
 #28249

Bitcoin sits at a strange intersection of computer science, mathematics, economics and sociology, and we can all probably learn a bit from each other.  Communication is hard, especially across disciplines.  




well said! Having an interest in most of these fields, yet considering myself an expert in none of them I try to limit my role on the forums to facilitating productive discussion. With so many big egos around it can be very difficult at times.

It's all bullshit. But bullshit makes the flowers grow and that's beautiful.
sickpig
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106


View Profile
July 06, 2015, 08:42:58 AM
 #28250

Bitcoin sits at a strange intersection of computer science, mathematics, economics and sociology, and we can all probably learn a bit from each other.  Communication is hard, especially across disciplines.  
Thats quite fair and true.

As an aside, today's 3 block invalid chain reorg included a 'v3' block on the invalid fork which contained a lot of transactions. Which may suggest someone is SPV mining while including transactions (something I'd pointed out was possible previously).

If I may ask, what were the pools involved in this reorg?

Bitcoin is a participatory system which ought to respect the right of self determinism of all of its users - Gregory Maxwell.
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
July 06, 2015, 09:46:44 AM
 #28251

you might slip and mess up your future as "the LeBron James of the Bitcoin world" (as your attorney decribed you (18:30), under oath, to a federal judge as part of litigation related to your possession of 3000 BTC taken primarly from members of this forum.).

I listened only to the 7 minute point where judge was skewering the female attorney who is arguing for the plaintiffs against our resident Dr. Lebron alias Cypherdorc (lol, just kidding ya my BOO!).

In any case, the plaintiffs will lose the case with that bonehead attorney and line of argument.

If they wanted to win, they wouldn't argue that DorkyDoc didn't do adequate promotion (because there is an entire thread on this forum showing he did, and now we have a core Dev admitting he invested 100 BTC based on Dorc's thread which adds validity to his promotional value). Rather they would argue that contract was fraudulent because why would they limit themselves to an exclusive marketing arrangement when there were multitudes of others who had similar reputations on Bitcointalk.org at the time (which is provable). In other words, DonaldDorc wasn't a scarce resource and thus it was an intentional overpayment of collusion.

But then the problem is HashFast (the plaintiff) would argue against themselves, so that is why they are not arguing to win the case. They've hired a female attorney to purposefully lose the case. This is a setup. I speculate I know what is happening here.

Vokain and Gmax kiss your BTC goodbye. Suckers.

(just joking for the dramatic effect but it also a point to everyone to be careful and responsible and also raises the question why is a core Dev speculating on scams, I would never get caught in that... my weaknesses was ... nevermind. Gmax thanks for sharing any way)

P.S. Gmax you committed a category error. It doesn't matter to his case if he slobbers on the technology (and because so many people can't understand the technology including some of the readers here, the attorneys, and the judge); it only matters that he has a huge following.

(my pops is former West coast Division head attorney for Exxon)


newb4now
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700


View Profile
July 06, 2015, 09:59:00 AM
 #28252

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.

I find it interesting how most coins only have 1 primary developer (and often fail when/if that developer leaves) and some coins have many people developing. Did some/most of these developers come to Monero on their own? Or were they invited to Monero from existing developers whom they already new?

Do you have any tips for attracting (or keeping) developers? Specifically for new coins that do not have much if any funding yet.

Bitcoin I can understand as most core developers were early adopters and have a vested interest in the project.

Now that bitcoin has been relatively well established (compared to all other coins) it seems that most new development is going into supporting services and infrastructure instead of bitcoin itself. Do you see that as a pattern that will be repeated with other coins (that developers who come along after a coin has been established will be more interested in building supporting services instead of working on the core itself)?
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
July 06, 2015, 10:02:23 AM
 #28253

Do you have any tips for attracting (or keeping) developers?

Yeah hire them. It helps if you are a programmer too and can talk shop with them. Presenting sexy tech helps a lot too. Helps also if you are likeable, reasonable, and demonstrate strong technical acumen. Mutual respect builds confidence.

Realize there are very few people who can possess all those skills, plus marketing skills, organizational skills, etc.. Not easy to find such a leader. Monero apparently had a core group of well-heeled guys (some that are also programmers) that gelled I believe via some connection to rpietila and David but perhaps I am mistaken. Probing my memory of the threads I read back in April, perhaps it was Tacotime that was the driving force.

Specifically for new coins that do not have much if any funding yet.

Nope. Get funding. Unless you are lucky to find well-heeled devs such as apparently Tacotime, fluffypony, smooth, etc.. But they don't want to corralled by someone into a project. They joined together because they had mutual respect and wanted to together address an anonymity weakness in the market.

Now that bitcoin has been relatively well established (compared to all other coins) it seems that most new development is going into supporting services and infrastructure instead of bitcoin itself. Do you see that as a pattern that will be repeated with other coins (that developers who come along after a coin has been established will be more interested in building supporting services instead of working on the core itself)?

That is the big question. Critical mass is well... critical. Blockstream's pegged side chains may help that a lot.

Monero appears to have its own community now and I am not following it, but for the brief moment I was reading their thread the other day, I saw others contributing a GUI. So maybe they are starting to get some traction on that. It is a big mountain to climb compared to Bitcoin's network effects.

newb4now
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700


View Profile
July 06, 2015, 10:18:01 AM
 #28254

Do you have any tips for attracting (or keeping) developers?

Yeah hire them. It helps if you are a programmer too and can talk shop with them. Presenting sexy tech helps a lot too. Helps also if you are likeable, reasonable, and demonstrate strong technical acumen. Mutual respect builds confidence.

Realize there are very few people who can possess all those skills, plus marketing skills, organizational skills, etc.. Not easy to find such a leader. Monero apparently had a core group of guys that gelled I believe via some connection to rpietila but perhaps I am mistaken.

Specifically for new coins that do not have much if any funding yet.

Nope. Get funding.

I think rpietila came along early in the life of Monero but after the core devs already joined the project.

One if the interesting things I see in Monero is that proportionally more bitcoin early adopters are involved than I see in other alt coins.

Is it because:

1. Bitcoin early adopters see Monero as a viable hedge to side chains and other potential fungibility/privacy fixes for bitcoin?

or

2. Bitcoin early adopters have been around long enough to recognize obvious pump/dump clone coins lacking much innovation and are far better at avoiding them than cryptocurrency newcomers trying to find the "next bitcoin"

I think we all can agree that 99+% of all altcoins will fail. How do early adopters identify coins that may be among the <1% to succeed as either a bitcoin hedge or a viable option to fill some niche that bitcoin either can/will not?
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
July 06, 2015, 10:25:39 AM
 #28255

I think rpietila came along early in the life of Monero but after the core devs already joined the project.

Yeah I jogged my memory and edited my prior post while you were writing.

One if the interesting things I see in Monero is that proportionally more bitcoin early adopters are involved than I see in other alt coins.

Is it because:

1. Bitcoin early adopters see Monero as a viable hedge to side chains and other potential fungibility/privacy fixes for bitcoin?

No I think side chains weren't a reality when Monero was launched. CN is strong on chain anonymity (but again isn't also IP obfuscation, which Tor and I2P are but I personally have doubts on Tor's and probably I2P's efficacy). Strong bet to make. Adds a real feature needed by the crypto market.

or

2. Bitcoin early adopters have been around long enough to recognize obvious pump/dump clone coins lacking much innovation and are far better at avoiding them than cryptocurrency newcomers trying to find the "next bitcoin"

I think we all can agree that 99+% of all altcoins will fail. How do early adopters identify coins that may be among the <1% to succeed as either a bitcoin hedge or a viable option to fill some niche that bitcoin either can/will not?

Yeah I think they are more astute. And I don't think you can protect grandmothers from mass delusions and scams, unless you regulate a market. I suspect most of the money in shitcoins is people who know they are shit and are playing the musical chairs game of the greater fool pyramid, i.e. as long is you aren't last it doesn't matter that you weren't first and that the asset has no underlying value.

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 06, 2015, 10:28:19 AM
 #28256

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
[...]
what am i missing?
Where I expicitly pointed out to you in many places, in excruciating detail, that this was not at all the case??  https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/39tgno/letting_miners_vote_on_the_maximum_block_size_is/cs6rek5?context=3   You seemed so happy to argue with it before, has your memory vanished now that you don't think it would be convient for you?

what's interesting is that we've never seen it done to the degree it is now.  we had the Mystery Miner a few years ago but he stopped it pretty quick.  also, despite many upgrades added to the protocol previously, we've never had a fork as a result of SPV mining before either.  what's different this time is the consistently full blocks and the fact that Wang Chun told us they create SPV blocks in response to large blocks as a defense.  it seems they consider full blocks large blocks so the excessive SPV mining created last nights fork in light of BIP66 and the upgrade to 0.10.x.  so in that sense, the 1MB cap is the direct cause of what is happening.  

The incohearence in some of these posts is so foaming so thick that it's oozing out and making the floor slick; careful-- you might slip and mess up your future as "the LeBron James of the Bitcoin world" (as your attorney decribed you (18:30), under oath, to a federal judge as part of litigation related to your possession of 3000 BTC taken primarly from members of this forum.).

As miners have created larger blocks F2Pool expirenced high orphaning (>4% according to them); they responded by adding software to mine without transfering or verifying blocks to avoid delays related to transfering and processing block data. Contrary to your claim-- the blocksize limit stems the bleeding here. Their issue is that large blocks take more time to transfer/handle and that they're falling behind as a result. Making blocks _bigger_ would not help this problem, it would do the _opposite_. If a miner wanted to avoid any processing of transaction backlog they'd simply set their minimum fee high and they'd never even mempool the large backlog.

Reasonable minds can differ on the relative importance of difference considerations, but when you're falling all over yourself to describe evidence against your position as support of it-- redefining F2pools crystal clear and plain descption of "large blocks" as their source of problems with the technically inexplicable "full" that you think supports your position, it really burns up whatever credibility you had left. That you can get away with it in this thread without a loud wall of "WTF" just shows what a strange echochamber it has become.

1.  Why do larger mining pools have less orphans, assuming most miners even small ones are connected to the relay network?
2. Even if mining pools set higher fees, aren't the unconfirmed TX's still added to their mempools?
3. How is it that 1MB just "happened" to be the magic number at which blocks are deemed to be "large" ?
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
July 06, 2015, 12:29:46 PM
 #28257

I'm thinking about maybe making Trapqoin by Shetty One Eye.

smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246



View Profile
July 06, 2015, 01:13:24 PM
 #28258

There wasn't really a single person as the driving force behind the Monero team coming together. We were all following cryptonote already for its anonymity and other interesting features and all wanted a cryptonote fork without the 82% premine. Several of us were independently studying the code and planning one. After a few more discussions on threads, PM's and IRC, the idea of a public open source project with the core team as leadership came together.
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1512


Crypto is the separation of Power and State.


View Profile WWW
July 06, 2015, 01:28:25 PM
 #28259

1.  Why do larger mining pools have less orphans, assuming most miners even small ones are connected to the relay network?
2. Even if mining pools set higher fees, aren't the unconfirmed TX's still added to their mempools?
3. How is it that 1MB just "happened" to be the magic number at which blocks are deemed to be "large" ?

1.  Larger pools solve more blocks, smoothing out the orphan variance experienced by smaller ones.
2.  Verifying the new tx incoming blocks contain has nothing to do with tx in mempools, which are waiting to be included in subsequent blocks.  Mining pools may choose to include or exclude tx based on fees, and individual implementations constantly adjust.
3.  Time to verify (via CPU-hard although parallelizable ECDSA) incoming block's tx is already (absent clusters of 48-core Xeons) problematic at sizes near 1MB, hence use of the subjective descriptor "large" and your conflation of that term with "full."

Gmax, did I get these right?  Can I get paid the big LeBron bucks now?   Grin

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
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1512


Crypto is the separation of Power and State.


View Profile WWW
July 06, 2015, 01:34:43 PM
 #28260

I'd like to hear Holliday's take on replace-by-fee.

I'm going to take the easy way out and quote someone who seems to have similar views as mine. I'm not really married to my opinion of this (I haven't really looked at it all that much) and I am certainly willing to listen to any arguments. I will say that I don't really care for Bitcoin as a daily transactional currency, unless it can easily do that while remaining a censorship-proof store of value. On the other hand, I can think of several situtations where it would be better to use Bitcoin instead of more traditional payment methods (in which case I have no problem waiting for however many confirmations the seller is comfortable with).

Like jdillon, I believe that in the long term, many miners will allow paid replacements of transactions and zero-conf transactions will become as useless as what we're afraid of.  You can talk about ethics, and what's in the "best interest of miners", but that is just wishful thinking that in a completely-decentralized system everyone will have the same ethics and motives.  I'd rather just see it happen and let the ecosystem adjust to the loss of remaining zero-conf security/sanity, instead of naively hope that everyone will follow the same guidelines that are not bound to follow.  Especially when there is economic incentive to breaking these guidelines.  Not all miners are dependent on the security of zero-conf transactions.  Many of them will just do what's best for their bottom line.

I've seen the phrase "allow" when referring to miners replacing zero-conf transactions.  Above, im3w1l mentioned "setting a precedent".  This is meaningless, because no one has control over all the miners, and they don't need to seek anyone's permission to do something that is entirely within the rules of the system.  The best we can do is "recommend" guidelines by making it part of the default client, but that's it.  It's part of the blessing&curse of being decentralized.  Sure, a lot of miners won't do it.  But some will, and you only need any to do it, in order for it to dramatically degrade this system.

Therefore, we are adapting ourselves (and letting others adapt) to a false reality by designing systems with an assumption that there is some security in zero-conf transactions.  I'd much rather just write it off completely, and let businesses and users adapt to the idea that zero-conf transactions are basically useless for exchanges between untrusted parties.  Forget it.  If you don't trust the person, don't mess with zero-confirmation transactions.  Period.


Thanks for that XPOST.  It's a great explanation and a great thread.

I love the smell of Hearn getting r3kt in the morning!   Grin

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
Pages: « 1 ... 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 1462 1463 ... 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!