Bitcoin Forum
December 18, 2017, 08:57:36 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [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 ... 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 1472 1473 1474 1475 1476 1477 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 2022644 times)
inca
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


View Profile
July 09, 2015, 03:05:50 PM
 #28521

There is quite the rumpus over on reddit over the blocksize debate. Reading this thread is a sea of calm reason in comparison.

Perhaps you could do a poll cypherdoc ..

EDIT: which is simply for / against blocksize scaling..
1513630656
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513630656

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513630656
Reply with quote  #2

1513630656
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1513630656
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513630656

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513630656
Reply with quote  #2

1513630656
Report to moderator
1513630656
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513630656

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513630656
Reply with quote  #2

1513630656
Report to moderator
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 09, 2015, 03:26:39 PM
 #28522

China threatening short sellers.  Shades of US back in 2008.  the volatility back then makes Bitcoin look like cake:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-07-09/china-soars-most-2009-after-government-threatens-sellers-arrest-global-stocks-surge
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1862


WARNING FOR NOOBS: Dash is an Instamined scam coin


View Profile WWW
July 09, 2015, 04:10:06 PM
 #28523

China threatening short sellers.  Shades of US back in 2008.  the volatility back then makes Bitcoin look like cake:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-07-09/china-soars-most-2009-after-government-threatens-sellers-arrest-global-stocks-surge

That's a good thing, because it ensures the economic crisis is over and Chinese companies will have plenty of capital to fund an explosion of bandwidth to homes.

Meanwhile, back in the real world...



██████████
█████████████████
██████████████████████
█████████████████████████
████████████████████████████
████
████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
███████████████████████████
██████
██████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
█████████████
██████████████
████████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
██████████████████████
█████████████████
██████████

Monero
"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
Buy and sell XMR near you
P2P Exchange Network
Buy XMR with fiat
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 09, 2015, 04:27:40 PM
 #28524

China threatening short sellers.  Shades of US back in 2008.  the volatility back then makes Bitcoin look like cake:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-07-09/china-soars-most-2009-after-government-threatens-sellers-arrest-global-stocks-surge

That's a good thing, because it ensures the economic crisis is over and Chinese companies will have plenty of capital to fund an explosion of bandwidth to homes.

Meanwhile, back in the real world...


I just want to highlight the comments here from bitcoin-dev today, which seem to indicate that these spamming attacks would have been 5.5x more expensive if a dust threshold software change had not been made. Perhaps there are deeper insights someone else has on this...?
Quote
16:53   wangchun   why can those spam get confirmed. 0.00001 BTC vout below dust threshold right?
16:54   phantomcircuit   wangchun, iirc the dust threshold is 546 satoshis
16:54   wangchun   not 5460 satoshis? changed?
16:54   aschildbach   wangchun: Yes it was cut by 10 a few months ago.
i don't think it really matters, does it?
since most of the mined blocks are filled with real demand trying to get into blocks with or without spamming,
Unfortunately, the majority in the blocks I checked earlier today have been the DOS attack-- e.g. transactions tracable from outputs of this transaction https://blockchain.info/tx/3bad15167c60de483cd32cb990d1e46f0a0d8ab380e3fc1cace01afc9c1bb5af  and a few others. ... though the attack style has been shifting to evade filtering by miners.

The change mentioned in the chat above is https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/3305 (you might find the comments there interesting), it's one of Mikes couple contributions to Bitcoin Core.
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
July 09, 2015, 04:33:23 PM
 #28525

Don't worry.  According to Mike Hearn Bitcoin can survive just fine with 4 or 6 (forgot which) copies of the blockchain worldwide.
Is he right or wrong about that?

Via what methodology would we test that hypothesis before arriving at a conclusion about its validity?
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
July 09, 2015, 04:41:16 PM
 #28526

Don't worry.  According to Mike Hearn Bitcoin can survive just fine with 4 or 6 (forgot which) copies of the blockchain worldwide.
Is he right or wrong about that?

Via what methodology would we test that hypothesis before arriving at a conclusion about its validity?

1. Does the network still provide strong double-spend protection?

2. Can users freely* publish valid transactions to the Blockchain (censorship resistance)?

*That is, subject only to marginal transaction fees.

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

Activity: 2352


View Profile
July 09, 2015, 04:41:25 PM
 #28527

Don't worry.  According to Mike Hearn Bitcoin can survive just fine with 4 or 6 (forgot which) copies of the blockchain worldwide.
Is he right or wrong about that?

Via what methodology would we test that hypothesis before arriving at a conclusion about its validity?

He's 100% right about that.  Bitcoin could probably survive with a single blockchain much like the federal reserve maintains one source of truth.

The statement is enlightening because it demonstrates the stark differences of Bitcoin in our world that different people have.  Like you and I for instance from everything I can see.

If one sees tainting as a good an necessary thing, and understands the communications optimizations which are possible between large and well funded business entities, then a small integer number of existing blockchains makes all the sense in the world.


Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
July 09, 2015, 04:49:37 PM
 #28528

The statement is enlightening because it demonstrates the stark differences of Bitcoin in our world that different people have.

Frankly, I think the only thing it demonstrates is your paranoia.  What matters is whether the Bitcoin network functions according to its promises of (1) double-spend protection and (2) censorship resistance.  The architecture of the network doesn't matter so long as those two promises are kept.  

You could argue that with only four to six copies of the Blockchain worldwide, that there is a greater chance that these promises will be broken (and I would tend to agree), but I see that as a different debate.    

Run Bitcoin Unlimited (www.bitcoinunlimited.info)
kazuki49
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 350



View Profile
July 09, 2015, 05:26:32 PM
 #28529


I don't see a problem with looking at the issues surrounding Bitcoin (the network, protocol, ecosystem, etc) in shades of grey, as opposed to black and white. The network may function exactly the same (black or white) with three independent miners or three thousand independent miners, but it's clear to me which side of that scale (grey) I would rather be on.

I think it's all part of the same debate (keeping promises and the chances of those promises being broken). (I don't really like to use the word "promises" either, as I'm not sure any have ever been made.)

Perhaps I'm paranoid as well, or maybe I'm missing your point entirely? I don't really have time to mull this over at the moment.

There are many shades of grey in Bitcoin as it has no fungibility and can't really protect transactions against miners censoring it.
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2352


View Profile
July 09, 2015, 05:26:46 PM
 #28530

The statement is enlightening because it demonstrates the stark differences of Bitcoin in our world that different people have.

Frankly, I think the only thing it demonstrates is your paranoia.  What matters is whether the Bitcoin network functions according to its promises of (1) double-spend protection and (2) censorship resistance.  The architecture of the network doesn't matter so long as those two promises are kept.  

You could argue that with only four to six copies of the Blockchain worldwide, that there is a greater chance that these promises will be broken, but I see that as a different debate.    

One need not be excessively paranoid to suspect that censorship will closely match what governments wish it to when a system is completely under the wing of a handful of huge corporations which operate completely at the pleasure of the government (which they, at best, play some role in molding.)  As Peter Todd mentions in his conversations with these people, it is perfectly obvious to this group that censorship is a no-brainer and the only logical way the system can work.

Similarly, one need be more of a historian than a paranoid freak to suspect that governments will formulate policies which protect systems which empower them and their sponsors.  I will not be using Bitcoin if/when it relies on the kindness of governments for it's function and thus their protection will not be of benefit to me.

To me, 'the architecture of the network' not only matters but it is the most critical aspect of Bitcoin and the aspect which will define whether it has a chance of keeping the two promises you mention or not.

As an exercise for the interested reader, one might consider Mike Hearn's statement that 'there is no difference between confiscating someones money and keeping them from spending it for 20 years' via mining consolidation and censorship with his statement about a small integer number of copies of the blockchain worldwide supporting a perfectly workable system.  It ought to be abundantly clear where HE is wishing to go with this thing, and one might consider this before dedicating ones efforts toward projects aimed at bloating the system as quickly as possible and at all costs (very much including power-grab 'benevolent dictator' style forks and internecine warfare which is almost certain to collapse the ecosystem of it's initial form.)


Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
July 09, 2015, 05:36:32 PM
 #28531

The statement is enlightening because it demonstrates the stark differences of Bitcoin in our world that different people have.

Frankly, I think the only thing it demonstrates is your paranoia.  What matters is whether the Bitcoin network functions according to its promises of (1) double-spend protection and (2) censorship resistance.  The architecture of the network doesn't matter so long as those two promises are kept.  

You could argue that with only four to six copies of the Blockchain worldwide, that there is a greater chance that these promises will be broken (and I would tend to agree), but I see that as a different debate.    

You've posted something similar to this earlier in the thread. I can't really find the words to express it at the moment, but something about this bothers me.

I'll try my best to get some kind of point across:

I don't see a problem with looking at the issues surrounding Bitcoin (the network, protocol, ecosystem, etc) in shades of grey, as opposed to black and white. The network may function exactly the same (black or white) with three independent miners or three thousand independent miners, but it's clear to me which side of that scale (grey) I would rather be on.

I think it's all part of the same debate (keeping promises and the chances of those promises being broken). (I don't really like to use the word "promises" either, as I'm not sure any have ever been made.)

Perhaps I'm paranoid as well, or maybe I'm missing your point entirely? I don't really have time to mull this over at the moment.

That's a fair comment and I think I see your point.  Smooth made a similar comment perhaps a week ago now when I was trying to argue that "centralized" and "decentralized" were absolute adjectives.

I guess I'm just trying to find a way to "break down" the problem into pieces, hoping that it will help us to see things more clearly.  That's why I'm looking at it as two pieces (A) Is the network preventing double spends and is the network censorship resistant? (B) What are the chances of it staying that way?

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

Activity: 1246


View Profile
July 09, 2015, 05:44:58 PM
 #28532

Don't worry.  According to Mike Hearn Bitcoin can survive just fine with 4 or 6 (forgot which) copies of the blockchain worldwide.
Is he right or wrong about that?

Via what methodology would we test that hypothesis before arriving at a conclusion about its validity?

Who cares?  Before you ask that question you need to show reasonable likelihood that increasing the block size to 8MB will drop the number of full nodes to 4 or 6.

Frankly, I think that a dramatic reduction of nodes is more likely if Bitcoin becomes a settlement network than if the block size is increased to 8MB.  NOBODY will be interested in holding the data if they can't use the network, so the only full nodes will be those sponsored by the payment aggregators.  These aggregators are also perfect locations for governments to apply identity and green address pressure, destroying fungibility.
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
July 09, 2015, 05:51:55 PM
 #28533

Soon you'll see that nearly the entire discussion has been rendered an irrelevant pita.

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 09, 2015, 05:52:22 PM
 #28534

Don't worry.  According to Mike Hearn Bitcoin can survive just fine with 4 or 6 (forgot which) copies of the blockchain worldwide.
Is he right or wrong about that?

Via what methodology would we test that hypothesis before arriving at a conclusion about its validity?

Who cares?  Before you ask that question you need to show reasonable likelihood that increasing the block size to 8MB will drop the number of full nodes to 4 or 6.

Frankly, I think that a dramatic reduction of nodes is more likely if Bitcoin becomes a settlement network than if the block size is increased to 8MB.  NOBODY will be interested in holding the data if they can't use the network, so the only full nodes will be those sponsored by the payment aggregators.  These aggregators are also perfect locations for governments to apply identity and green address pressure, destroying fungibility.


i'd agree with this.  altho i'd like to see the block cap removed altogether, certainly i'd go with Gavin's 8MB BIP101 proposal short term to ease into the long term goal.  i'm sure this interim solution would make many more ppl happy.
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
July 09, 2015, 06:19:09 PM
 #28535

Who cares?
I care because there's an appalling lack of rigour going around and it's not helpful.

1. Does the network still provide strong double-spend protection?

2. Can users freely* publish valid transactions to the Blockchain (censorship resistance)?

*That is, subject only to marginal transaction fees.

I think that's a good start. The question can then be translated to "what are the minimum requirements needed to prevent double spending and censorship?"

I suspect the answer in terms of the number of world-wide copies of the blockchain needed has a lower bound of 1, depending on our ability to create efficient fraud proofs and to implement better privacy behaviour in wallets.
Zangelbert Bingledack
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1036


View Profile
July 09, 2015, 06:20:55 PM
 #28536

Jeff Garzik has just posted 2 pull requests for bitcoin core on github:

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6405
Remove TX priority and free transaction area from mempool, block creator.

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6402
Floating network relay fee increase, if memory pool grows too large.

the latter will introduce, if merged, "a relay fee that adjusts to floods
which cause the memory pool to grow too large".

It seems that core devs start becoming aware of the lack of
of economic incentives for services provided by full nodes.


i hate to bring up an analogy from medicine since it may not be appropriate but i'll try nonetheless.

one of the greatest things i learned during my internship btwn med school and residency in eyes, is that too much intervention can cause problems for patients.  every 3 mo i'd rotate onto a new ward with responsibilities for about a couple of dozen gorked out patients.  i say gorked out b/c invariably all of them had at least a dozen meds onboard for a variety of reasons most of which had to do with sedation, pain, or anti-anxiety.  problem was, these meds unbeknownst to their previous physicians were preventing these ppl from getting better.  this was a repeating problem.  so the first thing i would do would be to cocentrate on stripping off as many of these unnecessary meds as possible.  much to everyone's amazement, these pts would perk up, turn around and start walking again, interacting with staff, feeling better, be more alert, and generally just get better to the pt i could discharge them.  and this experience happened over and over for me.  twas a great personal accomplishment for me and one i will never forget; don't over do it.

pt being, i still think the block size cap is the fundamental problem here.  more rules and limits that core dev piles on simply complicates the code and makes it more complex.  if anything, we should be stripping off rules and limits so that the free mkt can come to bear on many of these problems we are currently seeing.  the miners and users are perfectly capable of regulating the size of blocks and fees on their own.  if we lift the cap, the spam can actually help the network.  as long as spammers have to pay fees any spam attempts will line the pockets of miners and go back to growing the hashrate.  that would be a good thing and the last thing the spammers want to do.  no doubt they will try at first so we should expect even greater higher level attacks initially but in the long run, they will die off.  that's b/c their real objective is to disrupt new user growth which w/o a cap will be short circuited.  any further spam then will just help the tx mkt to grow, miners to profit, and yes, full nodes will eventually develop their own fee mkt too.  yes, full node capacities will have to grow but that should be viewed as a good thing b/c on the other end that will mean that miners are prospering (which is ok Greg) and user growth will be skyrocketing along with the price.  more merchants will come on board with new user growth and they will want and probably have a fiduciary responsibility to run their own full nodes which will add to network capacity.

so strip off rules and limits within reason, not add, and let BitcoinRun!

Yup, the parallels between economics and biology are striking. Introduce an arbitrary sacred cow "fix" (like the blocksize limit) into the mix, then all the machinery necessary to support it becomes a sacred cow as well. It takes a paradigm shift and a bit of a leap of faith to break out of that vicious cycle.
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260



View Profile
July 09, 2015, 06:30:53 PM
 #28537

Who cares?
I care because there's an appalling lack of rigour going around and it's not helpful.

1. Does the network still provide strong double-spend protection?

2. Can users freely* publish valid transactions to the Blockchain (censorship resistance)?

*That is, subject only to marginal transaction fees.

I think that's a good start. The question can then be translated to "what are the minimum requirements needed to prevent double spending and censorship?"

I suspect the answer in terms of the number of world-wide copies of the blockchain needed has a lower bound of 1, depending on our ability to create efficient fraud proofs and to implement better privacy behaviour in wallets.

With single node or 6 nodes we do not need POW. We already had this centralized services. ... but they are all down.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 09, 2015, 06:35:57 PM
 #28538

Jeff Garzik has just posted 2 pull requests for bitcoin core on github:

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6405
Remove TX priority and free transaction area from mempool, block creator.

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/6402
Floating network relay fee increase, if memory pool grows too large.

the latter will introduce, if merged, "a relay fee that adjusts to floods
which cause the memory pool to grow too large".

It seems that core devs start becoming aware of the lack of
of economic incentives for services provided by full nodes.


i hate to bring up an analogy from medicine since it may not be appropriate but i'll try nonetheless.

one of the greatest things i learned during my internship btwn med school and residency in eyes, is that too much intervention can cause problems for patients.  every 3 mo i'd rotate onto a new ward with responsibilities for about a couple of dozen gorked out patients.  i say gorked out b/c invariably all of them had at least a dozen meds onboard for a variety of reasons most of which had to do with sedation, pain, or anti-anxiety.  problem was, these meds unbeknownst to their previous physicians were preventing these ppl from getting better.  this was a repeating problem.  so the first thing i would do would be to cocentrate on stripping off as many of these unnecessary meds as possible.  much to everyone's amazement, these pts would perk up, turn around and start walking again, interacting with staff, feeling better, be more alert, and generally just get better to the pt i could discharge them.  and this experience happened over and over for me.  twas a great personal accomplishment for me and one i will never forget; don't over do it.

pt being, i still think the block size cap is the fundamental problem here.  more rules and limits that core dev piles on simply complicates the code and makes it more complex.  if anything, we should be stripping off rules and limits so that the free mkt can come to bear on many of these problems we are currently seeing.  the miners and users are perfectly capable of regulating the size of blocks and fees on their own.  if we lift the cap, the spam can actually help the network.  as long as spammers have to pay fees any spam attempts will line the pockets of miners and go back to growing the hashrate.  that would be a good thing and the last thing the spammers want to do.  no doubt they will try at first so we should expect even greater higher level attacks initially but in the long run, they will die off.  that's b/c their real objective is to disrupt new user growth which w/o a cap will be short circuited.  any further spam then will just help the tx mkt to grow, miners to profit, and yes, full nodes will eventually develop their own fee mkt too.  yes, full node capacities will have to grow but that should be viewed as a good thing b/c on the other end that will mean that miners are prospering (which is ok Greg) and user growth will be skyrocketing along with the price.  more merchants will come on board with new user growth and they will want and probably have a fiduciary responsibility to run their own full nodes which will add to network capacity.

so strip off rules and limits within reason, not add, and let BitcoinRun!

Yup, the parallels between economics and biology are striking. Introduce an arbitrary sacred cow "fix" (like the blocksize limit) into the mix, then all the machinery necessary to support it becomes a sacred cow as well. It takes a paradigm shift and a bit of a leap of faith to break out of that vicious cycle.

thx for taking the time to read that and understand it. 

if you look at everyone's own personal work around that we are now seeing come forth in this light, it soon becomes clear how complex and gorked out the system could become as a result.  Bitcoin's beauty is that it is relatively simple in it's function and why i favor simple solutions.
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
July 09, 2015, 06:45:06 PM
 #28539

With single node or 6 nodes we do not need POW. We already had this centralized services. ... but they are all down.
Can you rephrase your comment in terms of how the number of nodes is related to the number of copies of the blockchain in the world, and how both of those affect the ability of an attacker to perform double spending and censorship attacks?
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260



View Profile
July 09, 2015, 07:02:42 PM
 #28540

With single node or 6 nodes we do not need POW. We already had this centralized services. ... but they are all down.
Can you rephrase your comment in terms of how the number of nodes is related to the number of copies of the blockchain in the world, and how both of those affect the ability of an attacker to perform double spending and censorship attacks?

If there is only 1 copy of blockchain then I expect it is located in 1 datacenter. (node)
Pages: « 1 ... 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 1472 1473 1474 1475 1476 1477 ... 1558 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!