Bitcoin Forum
December 11, 2016, 02:11:57 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 ... 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 1464 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1808715 times)
sickpig
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106


View Profile
July 06, 2015, 02:17:38 PM
 #28261

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?

found the list:

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/July_2015_Forks#Invalid_Block_Hashes

those are the one related to July 5th reorg (from 21:50 to 23:40):

  • 000000000000000003ae1223f4926ec86100885cfe1484dc52fd67e042a19b12 mined by MegaBigPower (255 non-coinbase transactions)
  • 00000000000000000063f97f292fb559773437fb3558c474efec6053a7b0d5a2 mined by an unknown miner (0 non-coinbase transactions)
  • 000000000000000012dbd422d7bf1c4b55982c37b390d4613dcee00d31741c6a mined by an unknown miner (1,597 non-coinbase transactions)


Bitcoin is a participatory system which ought to respect the right of self determinism of all of its users - Gregory Maxwell.
1481465517
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481465517

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481465517
Reply with quote  #2

1481465517
Report to moderator
1481465517
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481465517

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481465517
Reply with quote  #2

1481465517
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481465517
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481465517

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481465517
Reply with quote  #2

1481465517
Report to moderator
1481465517
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481465517

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481465517
Reply with quote  #2

1481465517
Report to moderator
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
July 06, 2015, 02:29:28 PM
 #28262

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.

It is interesting that the power vacuum opened by the inventor's ineptitude (or Bytenote's alleged) was filled by a "leaderless" organization yet this apparent victor (within CN sphere) is apparently winner-take-all.

Similar in some ways to the outcome of the power vacuum from politics, but more like a benevolent junta.

I don't really have time to contemplate a more developed political, game theory analysis at the moment.

dragonseer
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 600


Bitcoin - Mazacoin - Mintcoin - Quark


View Profile WWW
July 06, 2015, 03:05:22 PM
 #28263

Without reading every page in this thread, I'll add my two cents worth here.

I can't see a reason why Gold can't rise along with Bitcoin at the moment, just at different rates. Whereas Bitcoin can approach $1000 again by the end of year (nearly 4x the current price) similarly Gold can approach $2000 by the end of the year (nearly 2x the current price). Neither Bitcoin or Gold are undermined by debt compared to all the trillions of dollars in stocks and bonds which are leveraged to general confidence in elite lending strategies.

http://poisonedchalice.io ~ explore, browse, option original & adapted screenplays ~ Invest with Bitcoin!
rpietila
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400


Crypto Kingdom (Creator)


View Profile
July 06, 2015, 03:40:19 PM
 #28264

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

Correct.

Quote
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?

+1 All of the above is true.

My process on "how" is in reality based on hunch, but in theory goes about as follows:

The coin needs to be the first legitimate instance of its kind, had a fair start/emission, and a market niche
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Litecoin FAIL (not the first of its kind)
Peercoin FAIL (no market niche)
Bytecoin FAIL (not fair start)
Boolberry FAIL (not the first of its kind)
Ethereum FAIL (questionable start)
All shitcoins FAIL (2-3 counts)

Only BTC and XMR fulfill all conditions, so it makes sense to invest into them (and them alone). To be fully hedged, you can keep 99.8% in BTC and set 0.2% aside in XMR. Going over this ratio, is overinvesting in XMR.

hdbuck
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1134



View Profile
July 06, 2015, 03:46:41 PM
 #28265

Without reading every page in this thread, I'll add my two cents worth here.

I can't see a reason why Gold can't rise along with Bitcoin at the moment, just at different rates. Whereas Bitcoin can approach $1000 again by the end of year (nearly 4x the current price) similarly Gold can approach $2000 by the end of the year (nearly 2x the current price). Neither Bitcoin or Gold are undermined by debt compared to all the trillions of dollars in stocks and bonds which are leveraged to general confidence in elite lending strategies.

mymy you are severely out of context considering the last 1000 or so pages you should have read here. Tongue

anyway, do not forget about how the gold market is rigged, rotten from its heart by the FED Masters, whom nonetheless deem worth accumulating/stealing shit tons of it @FortKnox.

bitcorn and popcoin is cheap now too tho Wink
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 06, 2015, 04:00:25 PM
 #28266

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

1.  when an individual hasher joins a pool large or small, he will not make earn any more BTC or reduce any orphans he might have gotten otherwise while mining individually, he just smooths both of those out over time.  this assumes that both large and small pools are joining the relay network (it's open so why not) or otherwise have excellent internet connections which i have heard many miners claim.
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."  such a statement is ignorant.  all the tx's received in the block results in the mempool being cleared of those same unconf tx's.
3.  your argument completely misses the point as well as the reality.  the answer is that it is exceedingly unlikely that Satoshi perfectly chose the point at which the network in July 2015 would consider 1MB to be "too large" to the pt that pools would start SPV creating hard forks.  that is so ridiculous on it's face it's not worth arguing.  also, it also totally ignores the fact that the top 5 Chinese pools have already gone on record stating that despite their problems with the GFC, they are perfectly ready and willing to inc the cap to 8MB and double it every 2 yr according to Gavin's proposal.  which says they are doing SPV mining for a reason other than the blocks are "large".  i can't say for sure b/c afaik, they haven't said exactly why they are SPV'ing.  i think it's b/c the cap is being continuously hit resulting in bloating unconf tx sets which is somehow affecting their willingness to include confirmed tx's in blocks.
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 938



View Profile
July 06, 2015, 04:19:42 PM
 #28267


3.  your argument completely misses the point as well as the reality.  the answer is that it is exceedingly unlikely that Satoshi perfectly chose the point at which the network in July 2015 would consider 1MB to be "too large" to the pt that pools would start SPV creating hard forks.  that is so ridiculous on it's face it's not worth arguing.  also, it also totally ignores the fact that the top 5 Chinese pools have already gone on record stating that despite their problems with the GFC, they are perfectly ready and willing to inc the cap to 8MB and double it every 2 yr according to Gavin's proposal.  which says they are doing SPV mining for a reason other than the blocks are "large".  i can't say for sure b/c afaik, they haven't said exactly why they are SPV'ing.  i think it's b/c the cap is being continuously hit resulting in bloating unconf tx sets which is somehow affecting their willingness to include confirmed tx's in blocks.

I'd like to run two statistical hypothesis tests:

1.  Is F2Pool/AntPool more likely to produce an empty block when the previous block is large?

2.  Is F2Pool/AntPool more likely to produce an empty block when mempool swells?

I think the answer to Q1 will be "yes." But I don't see why the answer to Q2 would be yes for any reason other than the previous block is more likely to be large when mempool swells (i.e., mempool is not the cause, just correlated).

Johnnybravo0311 is compiling a file that shows:

Code:
Height,NumTx,DateTime,WhoMined

for each block in the Blockchain, which will help answering Q1.  Does anyone know where I can get comprehensive data on the typical node's mempool size versus time to help answer Q2?




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

Activity: 926



View Profile
July 06, 2015, 04:30:37 PM
 #28268

Without reading every page in this thread, I'll add my two cents worth here.

I can't see a reason why Gold can't rise along with Bitcoin at the moment, just at different rates. Whereas Bitcoin can approach $1000 again by the end of year (nearly 4x the current price) similarly Gold can approach $2000 by the end of the year (nearly 2x the current price). Neither Bitcoin or Gold are undermined by debt compared to all the trillions of dollars in stocks and bonds which are leveraged to general confidence in elite lending strategies.

Yeah, I don't think it makes sense to come up with the idea that Bitcoin and precious metals would be mutually exclusive. I'm pretty sure that both will rise. Even if gold might ultimately be replaced by Bitcoin I doubt that this process will be fast enough to obstruct the general upward momentum of gold in a collapsing world economy.

After all, Bitcoin's concept is like virtual gold: The supply is limited, it's very difficult to counterfeit and you have to put in substantial effort to obtain it.

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 06, 2015, 04:37:51 PM
 #28269

gmax, you seem to think this post of yours is gospel, so let me address it pt by pt, since i don't and never have thought it was even worth my time to respond to:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/39tgno/letting_miners_vote_on_the_maximum_block_size_is/cs6rek5

I think the first assumption is that there is a non-negligible marginal cost per transaction (/byte) which miners can forgo if they choose to not include a transaction. This is essentially untrue, at least in the fundamentals. A miner has a transaction already before deciding to include it, or will have to immediately obtain it if someone else includes it. Because the transactions have been already forwarded around, once a block is found all that must be communicated is which of the already relayed transactions were actually included. This is what the block-relay-network protocol does already, and it takes 2 bytes per already-relayed transaction. This can further be reduced by the use of schemes such as the "O(1)" block relay idea, which-- if miners adopt consistent priority/censorship policies-- need only send the difference between the expected block and the actual-- with data only proportional to the difference.

this flies in the face of the current facts.  Chinese miners are SPV mining for the very fact that they believe they can earn more block rewards by NOT including tx's than including.  they've also told you that b/c of their inferior connectivity behind the GFC, they cannot accept an initial block size inc beyond 8MB.  both of these precisely have to do with their marginal costs of propagation delays despite the theoretical advantages of the relay network.  they do in fact worry about orphans related to large blocks.

Next, you're assuming that to whatever extent these proportional costs are non-negligible, miners will address them by optimizing their block size to maximize income. However, there is a superior option: Miners can prevent orphaning by centralizing the control of their hashpower to single large pools. We saw this effect after miners started producing blocks over 500K that orphaning drove miners to consolidate in large pools to reduce orphaning. Decreasing your own blocksize is not enough to reduce your orphaning, others must do so too, and larger miners would be on the winning side of the orphaning more often, reducing the size also has an unclear benefit, delays transactions, and passes up fee income. Centralizing mining results in an all cause orphaning reduction, is simple, and can reduce other operating costs. As a result we saw single parties having administrative control of over half the hashpower, completely undermining one of the base security assumptions of the system. This inspired the emergency deployment of the block relay protocol, which seems to have helped; though the distribution is still quite ugly.

i think it's a shame you continue to be stuck on the ghash incident.  you continue to ignore the fact that the double spend was done by an insider, was small in amount, and was inflicted on a dice website conducting 0 conf transacting.  you also ignore the fact that the market has subsequently punished ghash down to the level of 2%:



furthermore, you ignore the obvious fact that hashers are independently minded and will leave any pool that abuses it's power via all the shenanigans you dream up to scare everyone about how bad Bitcoin is.  this takes us back to the very first time i became concerned with your behavior.  it had to do precisely with this mining centralization issue you have ALWAYS though was a huge problem with Bitcoin.  well, i think you are wrong and i think we probably saw the very last time a single pool reaches 50% or more.  the mining market is evening out but we still have more to go.  and that would be to lift the block size limit and allow mining operations in other parts of the world to compete with Chinese miners with bigger blocks.

Finally, you're assuming that the equilibrium where fees match the costs related to verification and transmission is a viable state of affairs. The level of POW security in the system is a totally free parameter, if most of the miners income is going to pay costs related to verification and bandwidth then those funds cannot be used to provide POW security. Moreover, if the cost for verification at this equilibrium (if one exists at all, as miners can always increase their own income by breaking rank and accepting lower fees if there is no size limit) is considerable (E.g. comparable to the fee income) then how will any non-miners be able to afford to also run the verification, which is an essential part of Bitcoin's economic argument for SPV security-- that the majority of hashpower will follow the protocol because others will reject their blocks if they violate it).

here, you are talking about the fact that full nodes aren't paid like miners are.  i, and many many Bitcoiners, have said that we foresee specialized server farms that act solely for the purpose of full node verification and relay.  this is according to Satoshi's vision:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=68655.msg11625671#msg11625671

heck, I will run a specialized node if it gets to that pt.  that would be a great problem to have, all those tx's.  if so, the price will be correspondingly high and probably everyone of us could afford to run a full node.  but ignoring that level of altruism, if tx growth gets to that level, that would mean inc users-->inc merchants-->inc full nodes run by merchants.  merchants will want and have the fiduciary responsibility and financial wherewithall to run full nodes, no problem.
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1512


Crypto is the separation of Power and State.


View Profile WWW
July 06, 2015, 04:45:16 PM
 #28270

2.  Is F2Pool/AntPool more likely to produce an empty block when mempool swells?

...I don't see why the answer to Q2 would be yes for any reason other than the previous block is more likely to be large when mempool swells (i.e., mempool is not the cause, just correlated).

Exactly.  Dr. Frappuccino is letting his deranged, unreasonable hatred and fear of 1MB blocks color his thinking beliefs about completely unrelated (or, at best, merely "correlated") matters.

I'm shocked to discover how little he actually understands about technical issues on which he has such strong, stridently/frequently expressed opinions.

As Gmax was just saying, the end result of this trend is to burn up whatever is left of his tattered credibility.

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.

The trouble with our Gavinsta friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.

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
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1988


View Profile
July 06, 2015, 04:52:31 PM
 #28271

...
3. How is it that 1MB just "happened" to be the magic number at which blocks are deemed to be "large" ?
...
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."

Whether 1MB is ideal or not, it's what we have.  It's pretty evident that Bitcoin would be lucky to avoid annihilation on attempts to change it in any way at this point in time.  That may or may not be the case in the future.

As it happens, 1MB seemed to have been at least quite fortuitous for us, and I wonder if it were not somewhat well considered when Satoshi made the setting as opposed to the perception promulgated by some that he pulled a random number out his ass.

 - It is/was just under the realistic limits needed to run the network behind TOR.

 - It got us all the way into mid 2015 before it became much of a stressor at all.  Had it been smaller, interest in Bitcoin may have died while at the current interest levels it is more likely that significant efforts will be made to solve any necessary engineering efforts rather than to walk away.

 - Even now that touching transaction rate limitations is within sight, the transaction body is chalk full of freeloaders who do nothing worthwhile for network support (e.g., Multibitch users) and there is much room to grow by simply allowing these users to drain away as a transaction fee market develops.

 - It looks like for some time the entire blockchain will fit on a MicroSD meaning that new nodes can be brought up with nodes which are modest in expense and a concealable bit of physical media.  There is an easily calculable and reasonable ceiling on the power and bandwidth necessary to operate this support infrastructure, and it is low enough in value that most operators can walk away from their investment if there were pressures applied from the mainstream legal and law enforcement world.

In retrospect, 1MB seems like a pretty ideal setting for the past history of Bitcoin and some distance into the future.  To me.


cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 06, 2015, 04:54:43 PM
 #28272

2.  Is F2Pool/AntPool more likely to produce an empty block when mempool swells?

...I don't see why the answer to Q2 would be yes for any reason other than the previous block is more likely to be large when mempool swells (i.e., mempool is not the cause, just correlated).

Exactly.  Dr. Frappuccino is letting his deranged, unreasonable hatred and fear of 1MB blocks color his thinking beliefs about completely unrelated (or, at best, merely "correlated") matters.

I'm shocked to discover how little he actually understands about technical issues on which he has such strong, stridently/frequently expressed opinions.

As Gmax was just saying, the end result of this trend is to burn up whatever is left of his tattered credibility.

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.

The trouble with our Gavinsta friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.

i hope ppl here can discern the fact that most or all of what the Cripplecoin ppl have to say involves ad hominems and iCEBlow.  not to mention the obfuscation that attempts to link my dispute with the HF lawyers to the block size debate and Blockstreams financial conflict of interest in core dev.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 06, 2015, 04:57:51 PM
 #28273

...
3. How is it that 1MB just "happened" to be the magic number at which blocks are deemed to be "large" ?
...
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."

Whether 1MB is ideal or not, it's what we have.  It's pretty evident that Bitcoin would be lucky to avoid annihilation on attempts to change it in any way at this point in time.  That may or may not be the case in the future.

As it happens, 1MB seemed to have been at least quite fortuitous for us, and I wonder if it were not somewhat well considered when Satoshi made the setting as opposed to the perception promulgated by some that he pulled a random number out his ass.

 - It is/was just under the realistic limits needed to run the network behind TOR.

 - It got us all the way into mid 2015 before it became much of a stressor at all.  Had it been smaller, interest in Bitcoin may have died while at the current interest levels it is more likely that significant efforts will be made to solve any necessary engineering efforts rather than to walk away.

 - Even now that touching transaction rate limitations is within sight, the transaction body is chalk full of freeloaders who do nothing worthwhile for network support (e.g., Multibitch users) and there is much room to grow by simply allowing these users to drain away as a transaction fee market develops.

 - It looks like for some time the entire blockchain will fit on a MicroSD meaning that new nodes can be brought up with nodes which are modest in expense and a concealable bit of physical media.  There is an easily calculable and reasonable ceiling on the power and bandwidth necessary to operate this support infrastructure, and it is low enough in value that most operators can walk away from their investment if there were pressures applied from the mainstream legal and law enforcement world.

In retrospect, 1MB seems like a pretty ideal setting for the past history of Bitcoin and some distance into the future.  To me.



it's a Magic Number!

no, it was always meant to be a DoS prevention mechanism and Satoshi foresaw much wider and greater usage of Bitcoin as a worldwide p2p cash system to challenge the big banks:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=68655.msg11625671#msg11625671

it's is MUCH more likely these SPV mining attacks are a direct result of full blocks.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 06, 2015, 05:02:10 PM
 #28274

and here we go again:

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 06, 2015, 05:03:11 PM
 #28275

unconf tx's at 14,700   Roll Eyes
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 06, 2015, 05:04:42 PM
 #28276

and here we go again:



that 1 tx block is f2pool
kazuki49
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 350



View Profile
July 06, 2015, 05:07:57 PM
 #28277

The coin needs to be the first legitimate instance of its kind, had a fair start/emission, and a market niche
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Litecoin FAIL (not the first of its kind)
Peercoin FAIL (no market niche)
Bytecoin FAIL (not fair start)
Boolberry FAIL (not the first of its kind)
Ethereum FAIL (questionable start)
All shitcoins FAIL (2-3 counts)

Only BTC and XMR fulfill all conditions, so it makes sense to invest into them (and them alone). To be fully hedged, you can keep 99.8% in BTC and set 0.2% aside in XMR. Going over this ratio, is overinvesting in XMR.

It is not hard to come with these understandings after a generous overview of the top 50 altcoins, reason why I'm as uninpressed with LTC market as with its innovative features (none).
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 938



View Profile
July 06, 2015, 05:23:51 PM
 #28278

It's been two months since I plotted the original version of this chart.  We're still tracking the dashed line, as we progress deeper into the red zone:


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

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 06, 2015, 05:24:23 PM
 #28279

do we have a detailed statement from the Chinese pools as to "why" from their perspective they are SPV mining?  unfortunately, they might not tell us.
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1988


View Profile
July 06, 2015, 05:25:29 PM
 #28280

...
3. How is it that 1MB just "happened" to be the magic number at which blocks are deemed to be "large" ?
...
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."

Whether 1MB is ideal or not, it's what we have.  It's pretty evident that Bitcoin would be lucky to avoid annihilation on attempts to change it in any way at this point in time.  That may or may not be the case in the future.

...

In retrospect, 1MB seems like a pretty ideal setting for the past history of Bitcoin and some distance into the future.  To me.

it's a Magic Number!

no, it was always meant to be a DoS prevention mechanism and Satoshi foresaw much wider and greater usage of Bitcoin as a worldwide p2p cash system to challenge the big banks:
...

We don't know who Satoshi was and if what 'he' said about this or that is even especially reliable.  Assuming it is, we don't know that he said exactly what he was thinking.

If Satoshi said that he wanted to build a niche monetary system for big players and insiders to use as a reserve currency, I would not have been interested and would not have gotten involved.  Only after having dwelt on it some did I come to the conclusion that in spite of the faults and somewhat distasteful nature of the solution, it is the best way to have a chance of enduring success (and thereby at least partially dislodge those who do the same under a vastly inferior monetary system design such is our current crop of fiat solutions.)  So, Satoshi may well have tuned much of his writings (and code) to play on social pressures as much as computer science ones.

From a fairly early stage Satoshi seems to have gathered a contingent of fairly small-minded adherent (in addition to some brilliant ones such as Hal.)  Lesser minds tend to be attracted to shiny and simplistic things such as the 'Bitcoin is everything to everyone always and forever' philosophical construct.  I don't find it at all difficult to believe that Satoshi may have tuned his messages to retain these folks and build a 'critical mass' using these as footsoldiers.  If it were that or nothing, that is preferable in the battle to achieve a viable solution.


Pages: « 1 ... 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 1464 ... 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!