Bitcoin Forum
December 03, 2016, 07:59:48 PM *
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 ... 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 1465 1466 1467 1468 1469 1470 1471 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1803796 times)
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 07, 2015, 04:31:00 PM
 #28401

hmm, i wonder if those 2 SPV blocks could cause a fork?

1480795188
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480795188

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480795188
Reply with quote  #2

1480795188
Report to moderator
1480795188
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480795188

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480795188
Reply with quote  #2

1480795188
Report to moderator
1480795188
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480795188

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480795188
Reply with quote  #2

1480795188
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1480795188
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480795188

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480795188
Reply with quote  #2

1480795188
Report to moderator
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330



View Profile
July 07, 2015, 04:35:18 PM
 #28402

I was chatting with Luke-jr last night on Reddit, Eligius mines lots of 0tx blocks he said they don't SPV mine so it's just Kano is saying, they are just slow to transition.

Why would a pool ever mine an empty block if they weren't SPV mining (at least for a short amount of time while they validate the previous block and before they re-assign the hashers a new non-empty block to work on)?

Personally, I find it difficult to communicate with Luke-Jr because he will often argue based on a technicality due to his own personal definitions of some word, rather than talking about the thing everyone is actually trying to talk about.  It looks like he does this in other sub-reddits too, for example, he claims that the Pope is not the Pope.

Here is his answer to: I've notice eligius mining multiple empty blocks in a row, is that because they are SPV mining too, and if you know and it's open, what is the SPV mining policy?


Quote from: Luke-Jr
Eligius does not do any SPV mining. Empty blocks are generated only after the previous block has been fully verified, but before the next block's transaction set has been calculated.



It may come down to how you defined SPV mining I guess he is saying they try to mine on top of valid blocks and not empty ones.but if you get lucky you may have empty blocks in a row?

Would that be SPV mining?

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 07, 2015, 04:42:07 PM
 #28403

I was chatting with Luke-jr last night on Reddit, Eligius mines lots of 0tx blocks he said they don't SPV mine so it's just Kano is saying, they are just slow to transition.

Why would a pool ever mine an empty block if they weren't SPV mining (at least for a short amount of time while they validate the previous block and before they re-assign the hashers a new non-empty block to work on)?

Personally, I find it difficult to communicate with Luke-Jr because he will often argue based on a technicality due to his own personal definitions of some word, rather than talking about the thing everyone is actually trying to talk about.  It looks like he does this in other sub-reddits too, for example, he claims that the Pope is not the Pope.

Here is his answer to: I've notice eligius mining multiple empty blocks in a row, is that because they are SPV mining too, and if you know and it's open, what is the SPV mining policy?


Quote from: Luke-Jr
Eligius does not do any SPV mining. Empty blocks are generated only after the previous block has been fully verified, but before the next block's transaction set has been calculated.



It may come down to how you defined SPV mining I guess he is saying they try to mine on top of valid blocks and not empty ones.but if you get lucky you may have empty blocks in a row?

Would that be SPV mining?

yes, the defiinition is important.  all these guys are trying to shave milliseconds of the time to start hashing the next block after arrival of a block. 

before Luke, we had been talking about starting hashing of a 0tx blk immediately upon receipt of a "large" block, however that's defined by the pool to attempt to save the time of validating that large blk.  once validated, they sub out the 0tx with a blk with tx's and resume hashing.

Luke apparently gets a blk, large or small, validates it, then routinely sends out a 0tx blk to start hashing, just b/c he wants to save the milliseconds it takes to construct the tx template for a blk with tx's.  once constructed, he resends that blk out with the tx's.
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 938



View Profile
July 07, 2015, 04:53:55 PM
 #28404

Quote from: Luke-Jr
Eligius does not do any SPV mining. Empty blocks are generated only after the previous block has been fully verified, but before the next block's transaction set has been calculated.


It may come down to how you defined SPV mining I guess he is saying they try to mine on top of valid blocks and not empty ones.but if you get lucky you may have empty blocks in a row?

Would that be SPV mining?

Let's call it "empty block mining" instead.  He's right that it's not strictly SPV mining if you've indeed verified the previous block, but I think people are interested in the behaviour of Miners in the time between when a miner could begin hashing on an empty block, and when the hashers are actually working on a new non-empty block.  

So then there's:

   (1) empty block mining (previous block verified but new transaction set not built).
   (2) empty block mining (previous block not verified).  

EDIT: it would be nice to make a diagram to visualize all the steps that take place in the mining process.

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

Activity: 1022


View Profile
July 07, 2015, 06:17:14 PM
 #28405

From the devs' perspective, they have to deal with a lot of non-technical people, so dismissing arguments based on a technicality becomes a go-to tactic. They might justify it based on the fact that the person is clearly completely off-base and has nothing useful to say. This tactic is easier than explaining why.

The problem comes when they use that to justify dismissing someone even when they can't really be sure if they're completely off-base. It becomes a kind of last-ditch "panic button" for when they want to avoid addressing something.
domob
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 936


View Profile WWW
July 07, 2015, 06:46:05 PM
 #28406

there's a real battle going on at Bitstamp.  aren't they close to Greece?  i wouldn't be too pessimistic.

They are in Slovenia.  Not really too close to Greece from a European point of view.  I never heard talk about Slovenia (which is part of the Eurozone), so it probably is at least better off than Italy and Spain.

Use your Namecoin identity as OpenID: https://nameid.org/
Donations: 1domobKsPZ5cWk2kXssD8p8ES1qffGUCm | NMC: NCdomobcmcmVdxC5yxMitojQ4tvAtv99pY
BM-GtQnWM3vcdorfqpKXsmfHQ4rVYPG5pKS | GPG 0xA7330737
Hueristic
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1092


Doomed to see the future and unable to prevent it


View Profile
July 07, 2015, 06:53:44 PM
 #28407

Whether 1MB is ideal or not, it's what we have.

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.

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

Exactly this.  Intentionally or not, 1MB turned out to be a serendipitous choice.  Now it has ossified and is ready for the next layers to be built on its solid foundation.

I favor Adam Backamoto's extension block proposal.

The 1MB blocksize limit reminds me of the old 640k limit in DOS.

Rather than destroy Window's interoperability with the rich/valuable legacy of 8088 based software, that limit was extended via various hacks sublime software engineering.

Before resorting to the nuclear option of a contentious hard fork, we should attempt to achieve the desired result with soft forks.

:really off topic but I so rarely can add to the discussions. Tongue

Actually in order to address memory out of the address range of the cpu bus a "page swap" method was used which had been used on mainframes for many years, this was called expanded memory and was in 16k chunks which was very slow. with the 286 line extended memory was introduced and the cpu had to go into extended mode in order to access it. That of course if my memory serves me.

BITSLER                 ▄███
               ▄████▀
             ▄████▀
           ▄████▀  ▄██▄
         ▄████▀    ▀████▄
       ▄████▀        ▀████▄
     ▄████▀            ▀████▄
   ▄████▀                ▀████▄
 ▄████▀ ▄████▄      ▄████▄ ▀████▄
█████   ██████      ██████   █████
 ▀████▄ ▀████▀      ▀████▀ ▄████▀
   ▀████▄                ▄████▀
     ▀████▄            ▄████▀
       ▀████▄        ▄████▀
         ▀████▄    ▄████▀
           ▀████▄▄████▀
             ▀██████▀
               ▀▀▀▀
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▄             
▄▄▄▄▀▀▀▀    ▄▄█▄▄ ▀▀▄         
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▄       
█  ▀▄▄  ▀█▀▀ ▄      ▀████   ▀▀▄   
█ █▄  ▀▄   ▀████       ▀▀ ▄██▄ ▀▀▄
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
█  ▀▀       ▀▄▄ ▀████      ▄▄▄▀▀▀  █
█            ▄ ▀▄    ▄▄▄▀▀▀   ▄▄  █
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
█ ▄▄   ███   ▀██  █           ▀▀  █ 
█ ███  ▀██       █        ▄▄      █ 
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀   
▀▄            █        ▀▀      █   
▀▀▄   ███▄  █   ▄▄          █   
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀     
▀▀▄   █   ▀▀▄▄▄▀▀▀         
▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄█▄▄▀▀▀▀               
              ▄▄▄██████▄▄▄
          ▄▄████████████████▄▄
        ▄██████▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀██████▄
▄     ▄█████▀             ▀█████▄
██▄▄ █████▀                ▀█████
 ████████            ▄██      █████
  ████████▄         ███▀       ████▄
  █████████▀▀     ▄███▀        █████
   █▀▀▀          █████         █████
     ▄▄▄         ████          █████
   █████          ▀▀           ████▀
    █████                     █████
     █████▄                 ▄█████
      ▀█████▄             ▄█████▀
        ▀██████▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄██████▀
          ▀▀████████████████▀▀
              ▀▀▀██████▀▀▀
            ▄▄▄███████▄▄▄
         ▄█▀▀▀ ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ ▀▀▀█▄
       █▀▀ ▄█████████████▄ ▀▀█
     █▀▀ ███████████████████ ▀▀█
    █▀ ███████████████████████ ▀█
   █▀ ███████████████▀▀ ███████ ▀█
 ▄█▀ ██████████████▀      ▀█████ ▀█▄
███ ███████████▀▀            ▀▀██ ███
███ ███████▀▀                     ███
███ ▀▀▀▀                          ███
▀██▄                             ▄██▀
  ▀█▄                            ▀▀
    █▄       █▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄█
     █▄      ▀█████████▀
      ▀█▄      ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
        ▀▀█▄▄  ▄▄▄
            ▀▀█████
[]
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 938



View Profile
July 07, 2015, 07:09:38 PM
 #28408

On the topic of block verification times, people on Reddit are saying this block (filled with one huge TX) took up to 25 seconds to verify:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3cgft7/largest_transaction_ever_mined_999657_kb_consumes/

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

Activity: 868


Permabull Bitcoin Investor


View Profile
July 07, 2015, 07:17:30 PM
 #28409

Cypherdoc, what are the latest updates regarding the block size debate ?

Quote from:  Satoshi Nakamoto
Feb. 14, 2010: I’m sure that in 20 years there will either be very large transaction volume or no volume.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 07, 2015, 07:20:35 PM
 #28410

as you know, even Gavin talks about this memory problem from UTXO.  and yes, i read the Reddit thread that resulted in which you participated and i'm aware that UTXO can be dynamically cached according to needs.
http://gavinandresen.ninja/utxo-uhoh

Gavin was insufficently precise. There is a reddit thread is full of people calling gavin a fool ( Sad ) for saying "memory" when he should have been saying fast storage.  https://twitter.com/petertoddbtc/status/596710423094788097

Why do you think it's prudent to argue this with me?

Okay, lets take a bet. Since you're so confident; surely you'll grant me 1000:1 odds?-- I'll give my side away to a public cause.

The question is "Is the entire UTXO set kept in ram in Bitcoin Core ever released?"

I will bet 3 BTC and, with the 1000:1 odds, if you lose you'll pay 3000 BTC (which I will to the hashfast liquidators, to return it to the forum members that it was taken from; which will also save you some money in ongoing lawsuit against you).

Sounds good?  How will we adjudicate?  If not, what is your counter-offer for the terms?

Quote
i didn't say this full block spam attack we're undergoing wasn't affecting my node at_all.  sure, i'm in swap, b/c of the huge #unconf tx's but it hasn't shut down or stressed my nodes to any degree.  one of the arguments by Cripplecoiners was that these large block attacks would shut full nodes down from destabilization resulting in centralization.  i'm not seeing that.
The highest number of unconfirmed transactions I've seen ever is about 8MB. Even if we assume the real max was 3x that this is not explaining your hundreds of megabytes of swap.   We just had half the hashpower of the network mining without validating creating multiple large forks and large reorginizations, but you don't see any destabilization. Okay.

Let me chime in hear quickly, because I think Greg and I are talking about slightly different things.  My model was considering the time between the first moment that a pool could begin hashing on a blockheader, and when the previous block had been processed, a new non-empty block template constructed, and the hashers re-assigned to work on this non-empty block.  

It looks like this time, empirically, is 15 sec (F2Pool) and 30 sec (AntPool), based on these estimates.  

Here I suspect you're suffering from an excess of empiracisism without adequately devling into the mechenism.   You can directly measure that time time from input to minable on an actual node under your control and will observe the time is hundreds of times faster than your estimate. Why?   Miners don't magically know when their pool has new work, they'll get work in the first milliseconds and then grind on it some time before submitting returning work.  Even if the pool long polls them, it takes time to replace work. So what I suspect you're actually measuring there is the latency of the mining process...  which is consistent with what we've expirenced with P2Pool (5-20 second latencies from ASIC miners are common).

I noted you posted a result of a classification, did you run the same data through a simple logistic regression with prior size as the treatment? The intercept in the model would be interesting.

But indeed, these conversations have been conflating several seperate issues (latency vs throughput, etc.). Tricky to avoid that since they're all relevant.

but you haven't verified that f2pool or Antpool has increased their minrelaytxfee have you to minimize their mempool?
I have, they'd previously cranked it down, and were producing small blocks and were flamed in public.  They've since turned it back up.

Quote
remember, this whole mempool discussion was based off you responding to Peter's mathematics post the other day where you argued that the block verification times were only 80ms for a 250 kB block b/c tx's had been pre-verified after being passed around to all nodes across the network and didn't require re-verification by miners on the relay network and was therefore a refutation of his hypothesis of increasing block verification times (16-37sec on avg) leading to SPV mining.
As PeterR points out, they only need to wait for verification to actually verify (which they're not doing today), though they may have to wait longer to include transactions---- though I point out thats not fundimental e.g. no matter how big the backlog is you can produce a template sufficient to completely fill a block while doing no more work than handling a mempool of twice the maximum block size.  (by using a tiered mempool, though no one has bothered to implement this yet-- no one has even been complaining about how long createnewblock takes, due to the ability to produce empty blocks without skipping transactions).


well, you did claim some of it was in RAM; https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/35asg6/gavin_andresen_utxo_uhoh/cr2za45
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 07, 2015, 07:28:31 PM
 #28411

Cypherdoc, what are the latest updates regarding the block size debate ?

i'm not aware of any progress really.  you can follow bitcoin-dev mailing list for the details but everything i've seen there hasn't shown much progress.

may someone else who is really following it closely can comment.
pa
Hero Member
*****
Online Online

Activity: 484


View Profile
July 07, 2015, 07:38:59 PM
 #28412

Some of you will find this interesting: https://letstalkbitcoin.com/blog/post/lets-talk-bitcoin-228-sidechains-with-adam-back-and-andreas-antonoulos
stallion
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 182


View Profile
July 07, 2015, 07:47:19 PM
 #28413

If we talk about fluctuation in the prices of gold , that has always happened in the economy . What hasn't happened is the people who are comfortable with Gold investing their bucks , into equity or Bitcoin , for that matter. Gold is the safe secure return ,and supports the traditional mindset. It needs to be changed.

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 07, 2015, 08:06:27 PM
 #28414

If we talk about fluctuation in the prices of gold , that has always happened in the economy . What hasn't happened is the people who are comfortable with Gold investing their bucks , into equity or Bitcoin , for that matter. Gold is the safe secure return ,and supports the traditional mindset. It needs to be changed.

until or unless Bitcoin can manage to get into the hands of ppl worldwide, esp that African kid mining for gold, it won't become a digital gold.
2112
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1708



View Profile
July 07, 2015, 08:08:37 PM
 #28415

:really off topic but I so rarely can add to the discussions. Tongue

Actually in order to address memory out of the address range of the cpu bus a "page swap" method was used which had been used on mainframes for many years, this was called expanded memory and was in 16k chunks which was very slow. with the 286 line extended memory was introduced and the cpu had to go into extended mode in order to access it. That of course if my memory serves me.
You should maybe serve your memory some fish, so that it could serve you better. Tongue

You've conflated several related concepts:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_memory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expanded_memory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_mode
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CDC_6600 and search for "ECS" (Extended Core Storage)

Please comment, critique, criticize or ridicule BIP 2112: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=54382.0
Long-term mining prognosis: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=91101.0
Hueristic
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1092


Doomed to see the future and unable to prevent it


View Profile
July 07, 2015, 08:47:24 PM
 #28416

:really off topic but I so rarely can add to the discussions. Tongue

Actually in order to address memory out of the address range of the cpu bus a "page swap" method was used which had been used on mainframes for many years, this was called expanded memory and was in 16k chunks which was very slow. with the 286 line extended memory was introduced and the cpu had to go into extended mode in order to access it. That of course if my memory serves me.
You should maybe serve your memory some fish, so that it could serve you better. Tongue

You've conflated several related concepts:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_memory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expanded_memory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_mode

:OFF Topic still
Yeah, those links verify what I said.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CDC_6600 and search for "ECS" (Extended Core Storage)

Was this the first page swapping mainframe?

BITSLER                 ▄███
               ▄████▀
             ▄████▀
           ▄████▀  ▄██▄
         ▄████▀    ▀████▄
       ▄████▀        ▀████▄
     ▄████▀            ▀████▄
   ▄████▀                ▀████▄
 ▄████▀ ▄████▄      ▄████▄ ▀████▄
█████   ██████      ██████   █████
 ▀████▄ ▀████▀      ▀████▀ ▄████▀
   ▀████▄                ▄████▀
     ▀████▄            ▄████▀
       ▀████▄        ▄████▀
         ▀████▄    ▄████▀
           ▀████▄▄████▀
             ▀██████▀
               ▀▀▀▀
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▄             
▄▄▄▄▀▀▀▀    ▄▄█▄▄ ▀▀▄         
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▄       
█  ▀▄▄  ▀█▀▀ ▄      ▀████   ▀▀▄   
█ █▄  ▀▄   ▀████       ▀▀ ▄██▄ ▀▀▄
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
█  ▀▀       ▀▄▄ ▀████      ▄▄▄▀▀▀  █
█            ▄ ▀▄    ▄▄▄▀▀▀   ▄▄  █
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
█ ▄▄   ███   ▀██  █           ▀▀  █ 
█ ███  ▀██       █        ▄▄      █ 
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀   
▀▄            █        ▀▀      █   
▀▀▄   ███▄  █   ▄▄          █   
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀     
▀▀▄   █   ▀▀▄▄▄▀▀▀         
▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄█▄▄▀▀▀▀               
              ▄▄▄██████▄▄▄
          ▄▄████████████████▄▄
        ▄██████▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀██████▄
▄     ▄█████▀             ▀█████▄
██▄▄ █████▀                ▀█████
 ████████            ▄██      █████
  ████████▄         ███▀       ████▄
  █████████▀▀     ▄███▀        █████
   █▀▀▀          █████         █████
     ▄▄▄         ████          █████
   █████          ▀▀           ████▀
    █████                     █████
     █████▄                 ▄█████
      ▀█████▄             ▄█████▀
        ▀██████▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄██████▀
          ▀▀████████████████▀▀
              ▀▀▀██████▀▀▀
            ▄▄▄███████▄▄▄
         ▄█▀▀▀ ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ ▀▀▀█▄
       █▀▀ ▄█████████████▄ ▀▀█
     █▀▀ ███████████████████ ▀▀█
    █▀ ███████████████████████ ▀█
   █▀ ███████████████▀▀ ███████ ▀█
 ▄█▀ ██████████████▀      ▀█████ ▀█▄
███ ███████████▀▀            ▀▀██ ███
███ ███████▀▀                     ███
███ ▀▀▀▀                          ███
▀██▄                             ▄██▀
  ▀█▄                            ▀▀
    █▄       █▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄█
     █▄      ▀█████████▀
      ▀█▄      ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
        ▀▀█▄▄  ▄▄▄
            ▀▀█████
[]
solex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078


100 satoshis -> ISO code


View Profile
July 07, 2015, 09:02:08 PM
 #28417

Quote from: Luke-Jr
Eligius does not do any SPV mining. Empty blocks are generated only after the previous block has been fully verified, but before the next block's transaction set has been calculated.


It may come down to how you defined SPV mining I guess he is saying they try to mine on top of valid blocks and not empty ones.but if you get lucky you may have empty blocks in a row?

Would that be SPV mining?

Let's call it "empty block mining" instead.  He's right that it's not strictly SPV mining if you've indeed verified the previous block, but I think people are interested in the behaviour of Miners in the time between when a miner could begin hashing on an empty block, and when the hashers are actually working on a new non-empty block.  

So then there's:

   (1) empty block mining (previous block verified but new transaction set not built).
   (2) empty block mining (previous block not verified).  

EDIT: it would be nice to make a diagram to visualize all the steps that take place in the mining process.

Tier Nolan has provided a logical explanation of how SPV mining should be done, which of course is just part of the end-to-end process to cut over to a new working block.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1108668.msg11799081#msg11799081

gmaxwell
Staff
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2016



View Profile
July 07, 2015, 09:12:51 PM
 #28418

On the topic of block verification times, people on Reddit are saying this block (filled with one huge TX) took up to 25 seconds to verify:
yes, they're actually quoting pieter and I from #bitcoin-dev (telling the miner in advance that the transaction he was creating would take a _LONG_ time to verify). They created a huge non-standard 1MB transaction and part of the verification time is quadratic (in the number of inputs).

It's actually possible to create a block that would take many minutes to verify, though not with standard transactions-- only something contrived.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 07, 2015, 09:52:26 PM
 #28419

On the topic of block verification times, people on Reddit are saying this block (filled with one huge TX) took up to 25 seconds to verify:
yes, they're actually quoting pieter and I from #bitcoin-dev (telling the miner in advance that the transaction he was creating would take a _LONG_ time to verify). They created a huge non-standard 1MB transaction and part of the verification time is quadratic (in the number of inputs).

It's actually possible to create a block that would take many minutes to verify, though not with standard transactions-- only something contrived.


and these have to be self mined, correct?
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1974


View Profile
July 07, 2015, 10:17:02 PM
 #28420

Clean and synched mempools makes for a cleaner blockchain, else garbage in - garbage out. Most mempools are synched because node owners don't usually mess with tx policy. They accept the defaults.
The blockchain itself constain substantial counter-eficidence. Any block over 750k is running with changed settings; as are a substantial chunk of the transactions.  I think this is all well and good, but it's not the case that its all consistent.

Quote
IBLT doesn't currently exist, and other mechenisms like the relay network protocol don't care about mempool synchronization levels.

IBLT does exist as it has been prototyped by Kalle and Rusty. It is just nowhere near ready for a pull request.
It has never relayed a _single_ block, not in a lab, not anywhere. It does _not_ exist. It certantly can and will exist-- though it's not yet clear how useful it will be over the relay network-- Gavin, for example, doesn't believe it will be useful "until blocks are hundreds of megabytes".

While you are bumming around here, Greg, perhaps you could comment on the first thing which hit me when I looked into IBLT.  Nobody else has.  The thought hit my partially because of who seemed to be promoting it.

1) w/ question

Solex posits the 'garbage in/garbage out' principle which IBLT is supposed to be able to address by helping everyone's mempool be syncronized.  It imediately struck me that some (if not most) people would consider blacklisted or non-whitelisted UTXOs as being 'garbage'.  It struck me that IBLT could be used as an efficient way for miners to be sure that they had 'properly' cleared their transaction list of 'garbage' transactions so they didn't 'waste their time' mining the 'wrong' transactions.  Has that danger/potential been explored by the techies?

2) w/o question

From my time as a mechanic and having a life-long interest in mechanical things, I will state that for optimizing efficiency and power, tight tolerances and precision are the way to go.  The trouble is that fairly small things that go wrong (say, a partial blockage of the radiator) can cause them to seize up.  When I raced motorcycles, the high performance ones were expected to be re-built after each race and the performance decline if one did not do this, or if any little thing went wrong was very noticeable and always fatal if one was performing near the top of the field (I was not.)

For rugged dependability one wants sloppy clearances, way over-designed parts, etc.  They don't run efficiently, but a lot of time that does not matter.  The most important thing is that the performance is predictable.

Trying valiantly to achieve high precision synchronization of every miner's mempools in nearly real-time across a network which is (hopefully) deliberately distributed seems like a bad idea.  Loose 'blocked' tolerances in transaction sequencing leaving construction completely up to individual miners just somehow 'feels' to me to be the way to go from a defensibly standpoint.  (Of course I don't give two shits about 0-conf transactions and consider them a negative, so it's easier for me to feel this way.)

But don't you think that I'm saying anything bad about it-- I'm not. Cypherdoc was arguing that mempools were (and had) to be the same, and cited IBLT as a reason---- but it cannot currently be a reason, because it doesn't exist.  Be careful about assigning virtue to the common fate aspect of it-- as it can make censorship much worse. (OTOH, rusty's latest optimizations reduce the need for consistency; and my network block coding idea-- which is what insired IBLT, but is more complex-- basically eliminates consistency pressure entirely)
...

Praise God!



Pages: « 1 ... 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 1465 1466 1467 1468 1469 1470 1471 ... 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!