Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[iCEBREAKER]

i'll be offline for the next 3d camping.  have fun with your new Master "iCEBlow"  et al!

2d without your FUD and bitcoin is at $318.
...

The guy comes back and we drop down into the $270's.  Go figure.

yeah, and you're full of shit.  when i got back it was already down to $292 and dropping.  do you enjoy being such an idiot?

Sometimes.

LOL rekt

[1714236925]

1714236925

[1714236925]

1714236925

[1714236925]

1714236925

[1714236925]

1714236925

[1714236925]

1714236925

[Odalv]

The guy comes back and we drop down into the $270's.  Go figure.

+1

I posted this message to show him mirror. In (cypherdoc's)reality it is "The core devs and Blockstream" who suppressed the bitcoin price. :-)

[cypherdoc]

i'm glad the VC's are starting to focus in on what the real problem is:

https://a16z.com/2015/07/13/a16z-podcast-bitcoins-growing-pains-and-possibilities/

[iCEBREAKER]

i'm glad the VC's are starting to focus in on what the real problem is:

https://a16z.com/2015/07/13/a16z-podcast-bitcoins-growing-pains-and-possibilities/

Oh how nice to hear the view from 2865 Sand Hill Road, courtesy of In-Q-Tel (AKA CIA) partner A16 and Hearn@sigint.google.mil.

27 seconds in, and we've already being treated to hard-selling, counterfactual exaggeration in the form of "there not much time left to make changes before Bitcoin blockchain capacity runs out."

"1MB kludge"  No, wrong, a sanity check/DOS regulator is not a "kludge." 

   FFS, I'm struggling to not attribute to malice what can be explained by ignorance, but Hearn should know better.  Especially as Gavin as told us the sky will not fall because of full 1MB blocks.

[smooth]

i'm glad the VC's are starting to focus in on what the real problem is:

https://a16z.com/2015/07/13/a16z-podcast-bitcoins-growing-pains-and-possibilities/

Oh how nice to hear the view from 2865 Sand Hill Road, courtesy of In-Q-Tel (AKA CIA) partner A16 and Hearn@sigint.google.mil.

27 seconds in, and we've already being treated to hard-selling, counterfactual exaggeration in the form of "there not much time left to make changes before Bitcoin blockchain capacity runs out."

"1MB kludge"  No, wrong, a sanity check/DOS regulator is not a "kludge."  

   FFS, I'm struggling to not attribute to malice what can be explained by ignorance, but Hearn should know better.  Especially as Gavin as told us the sky will not fall because of full 1MB blocks.

To this day, nobody has explained why satoshi felt it was necessary to limit block size to prevent DoS yet suddenly today because there is more usage the threat of DoS no longer exists (?) and we should have huge/no/exponentially-growing block limits.

As I said before, until there is some other replacement mechanism added to guard against the attack vector identified by satoshi which motivated the 1 MB limit, there is no rational basis for removing or radically increasing that limit. (I don't see anything wrong with a modest increase in line with hardware improvements since 2009-10, which is maybe something like 3x; the exact ratio depends on which of the relevant hardware resources you consider important or most important.)

[MarketNeutral]

i'm glad the VC's are starting to focus in on what the real problem is:

https://a16z.com/2015/07/13/a16z-podcast-bitcoins-growing-pains-and-possibilities/

Oh how nice to hear the view from 2865 Sand Hill Road, courtesy of In-Q-Tel (AKA CIA) partner A16 and Hearn@sigint.google.mil.

27 seconds in, and we've already being treated to hard-selling, counterfactual exaggeration in the form of "there not much time left to make changes before Bitcoin blockchain capacity runs out."

"1MB kludge"  No, wrong, a sanity check/DOS regulator is not a "kludge."  

   FFS, I'm struggling to not attribute to malice what can be explained by ignorance, but Hearn should know better.  Especially as Gavin as told us the sky will not fall because of full 1MB blocks.

You give Hearn far more benefit of the doubt than I do. I think he knows better. Malice? I wouldn't go so far. Hubris, perhaps. I don't know what Hearn's ulterior motives are, but I'd wager more than a few bitcoins than he has a long-term stratagem in the back of his mind. Is he the bad cop to Gavin's good cop? Are Wlad and company on board with Hearn? Are the other devs naïve? I can only speculate, and I prefer to give the devs the benefit of the doubt, but Hearn is the only dev that regularly leaves me disconcerted. At this point, I defer to Gavin's opinion over Hearn's.

EDIT: Nick Szabo recently tweeted, "Hearn's views in this debate are very far from Bitcoin developer mainstream."
https://twitter.com/NickSzabo4/status/621773448298147840

[MarketNeutral]

i'm glad the VC's are starting to focus in on what the real problem is:

https://a16z.com/2015/07/13/a16z-podcast-bitcoins-growing-pains-and-possibilities/

Oh how nice to hear the view from 2865 Sand Hill Road, courtesy of In-Q-Tel (AKA CIA) partner A16 and Hearn@sigint.google.mil.

27 seconds in, and we've already being treated to hard-selling, counterfactual exaggeration in the form of "there not much time left to make changes before Bitcoin blockchain capacity runs out."

"1MB kludge"  No, wrong, a sanity check/DOS regulator is not a "kludge."  

   FFS, I'm struggling to not attribute to malice what can be explained by ignorance, but Hearn should know better.  Especially as Gavin as told us the sky will not fall because of full 1MB blocks.

To this day, nobody has explained why satoshi felt it was necessary to limit block size to prevent DoS yet suddenly today because there is more usage the threat of DoS no longer exists (?) and we should have huge/no/exponentially-growing block limits.

As I said before, until there is some other replacement mechanism added to guard against the attack vector identified by satoshi which motivated the 1 MB limit, there is no rational basis for removing or radically increasing that limit. (I don't see anything wrong with a modest increase in line with hardware improvements since 2009-10, which is maybe something like 3x; the exact ratio depends on which of the relevant hardware resources you consider important or most important.)

I've wondered about this, as well. Some people have opined that satoshi chose arbitrary values for some aspects of bitcoin's design, but I am more inclined towards the opposite view, despite us not fully understanding why he chose some figures.

[solex]

To this day, nobody has explained why satoshi felt it was necessary to limit block size to prevent DoS yet suddenly today because there is more usage the threat of DoS no longer exists (?) and we should have huge/no/exponentially-growing block limits.

We do know why Satoshi felt it necessary to limit the size in the way he did. Mike gives the background here: https://medium.com/@octskyward/the-capacity-cliff-586d1bf7715e

The limit was intended to be removed. In fact, Satoshi intended it to be removed as soon as SPV wallets were developed.

I know this because at the end of 2010 I emailed him to ask about it. He responded,

A higher limit can be phased in once we have actual use closer to the limit and make sure it’s working OK.
Eventually when we have client-only implementations, the block chain size won’t matter much. Until then, while all users still have to download the entire block chain to start, it’s nice if we can keep it down to a reasonable size.

So, the 1MB was a "sanity check" later described as a general spam limiting measure. When Satoshi did the commits to put this limit in everyone who used bitcoins had to run a full node. Many of them had low-power hardware and were just learning about his new form of electronic money. He did not want a rogue miner to create a series of large blocks which were >1000x the prevailing average block size, and put people off at such a delicate time. Also, the first mention of FPGA mining on bitcointalk was made then.

Clearly, a rogue miner using FPGA tech was the thing Satoshi feared at that time. Satoshi did not always explain his actions and one reason for this is that detailing an attack vector increases the probability that it will be acted upon.

[NewLiberty]

A bad thing is when people like cypherdoc derive from the conflict of interest malicious intents without proof other than "I don't trust them"

What actually happened is that when Blockstream was announced multiple noted that it created the appearance of a potential conflict of interest.

Instead of acknowledging this potential (fairly standard practice in many business situations!), the Blockstream founders took the bizarre route of denying even the possibility of a conflict of interest.

That choice of actions is what lead to ongoing concern about their motives, not the founding of Blockstream itself.

I had not seen this comment until it was pointed out to me today:

https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2k3u97/we_are_bitcoin_sidechain_paper_authors_adam_back/clhy7kk?context=1

There clearly were some accurate acknowledgements of potential conflicts of interests in that Reddit post.

I'd not seen it either, and it is a bit reassuring.
It would be nice to see some method for evaluating and accommodating if it is really something they recognize.

[MarketNeutral]

To this day, nobody has explained why satoshi felt it was necessary to limit block size to prevent DoS yet suddenly today because there is more usage the threat of DoS no longer exists (?) and we should have huge/no/exponentially-growing block limits.

We do know why Satoshi felt it necessary to limit the size in the way he did. Mike gives the background here: https://medium.com/@octskyward/the-capacity-cliff-586d1bf7715e

The limit was intended to be removed. In fact, Satoshi intended it to be removed as soon as SPV wallets were developed.

I know this because at the end of 2010 I emailed him to ask about it. He responded,

A higher limit can be phased in once we have actual use closer to the limit and make sure it’s working OK.
Eventually when we have client-only implementations, the block chain size won’t matter much. Until then, while all users still have to download the entire block chain to start, it’s nice if we can keep it down to a reasonable size.

So, the 1MB was a "sanity check" later described as a general spam limiting measure. When Satoshi did the commits to put this limit in everyone who used bitcoins had to run a full node. Many of them had low-power hardware and were just learning about his new form of electronic money. He did not want a rogue miner to create a series of large blocks which were >1000x the prevailing average block size, and put people off at such a delicate time. Also, the first mention of FPGA mining on bitcointalk was made then.

Clearly, a rogue miner using FPGA tech was the thing Satoshi feared at that time. Satoshi did not always explain his actions and one reason for this is that detailing an attack vector increases the probability that it will be acted upon.

Thank you for clarifying things.

[NewLiberty]

Clearly, a rogue miner using FPGA tech was the thing Satoshi feared at that time. Satoshi did not always explain his actions and one reason for this is that detailing an attack vector increases the probability that it will be acted upon.

There's still ways to make nasty blocks.
Blocks as small as 8mb that would take >10 mins to verify, and radically expand the UTXO dataset.  It isn't as though we are out of the woods.  The economic incentive to do something like this is that the miner could be building on it immediately whereas everyone else is still verifying, (or they just skip doing that, which fine but brings its own set of issues).

[solex]

Clearly, a rogue miner using FPGA tech was the thing Satoshi feared at that time. Satoshi did not always explain his actions and one reason for this is that detailing an attack vector increases the probability that it will be acted upon.

There's still ways to make nasty blocks.
Blocks as small as 8mb that would take >10 mins to verify, and radically expand the UTXO dataset.  It isn't as though we are out of the woods.  The economic incentive to do something like this is that the miner could be building on it immediately whereas everyone else is still verifying, (or they just skip doing that, which fine but brings its own set of issues).

Honestly, I'm the last person who wants to see the limit increased and a host of other problems appear. My original opinion was that an adaptive, dynamic block size limit was best, just like you argued all along. It was only when Gavin preferred a fixed scheduled increasing limit that I went with that, for the reason that any workable solution to the 1MB is better than no solution at all, and finally we are seeing with BIP 102 what must be the lowest common denominator in this whole saga. Even BIP 102 is a hell of a lot better than doing nothing.

Regarding >10 mins verification. Those monster tx of nearly 1MB took a lot of people by surprise, except Core Dev who knew about this risk and had a 100KB relay limit. Unfortunately the "nasty" 25 sec verification tx were out-of-band and fed directly into Discus Fish. Maybe tx size should be limited to 10% of block size limit at the protocol level and this needs to go in with any >1MB change?

I really like the anti-fragility aspect of Bitcoin which is amazing because every curve ball sent its way gets dealt with in the software making it stronger in the future.

[brg444]

Clearly, a rogue miner using FPGA tech was the thing Satoshi feared at that time. Satoshi did not always explain his actions and one reason for this is that detailing an attack vector increases the probability that it will be acted upon.

There's still ways to make nasty blocks.
Blocks as small as 8mb that would take >10 mins to verify, and radically expand the UTXO dataset.  It isn't as though we are out of the woods.  The economic incentive to do something like this is that the miner could be building on it immediately whereas everyone else is still verifying, (or they just skip doing that, which fine but brings its own set of issues).

Honestly, I'm the last person who wants to see the limit increased and a host of other problems appear. My original opinion was that an adaptive, dynamic block size limit was best, just like you argued all along. It was only when Gavin preferred a fixed scheduled increasing limit that I went with that, for the reason that any workable solution to the 1MB is better than no solution at all, and finally we are seeing with BIP 102 what must be the lowest common denominator in this whole saga. Even BIP 102 is a hell of a lot better than doing nothing.

Regarding >10 mins verification. Those monster tx of nearly 1MB took a lot of people by surprise, except Core Dev who knew about this risk and had a 100KB relay limit. Unfortunately the "nasty" 25 sec verification tx were out-of-band and fed directly into Discus Fish. Maybe tx size should be limited to 10% of block size at the protocol level and this needs to go in with any >1MB change?

I really like the anti-fragility aspect of Bitcoin which is amazing because every curve ball sent its way gets dealt with in the software making it stronger in the future.

I am not yet convinced that forking the network for a 1MB change to the block size is "better than doing nothing".

[solex]

I am not yet convinced that forking the network for a 1MB change to the block size is "better than doing nothing".

Then please explain how Bitcoin scales to handle increased demand by users?
Don't forget that Pieter Wuille has said that sidechains are not a scaling solution. However, feel free to rebut that in your response.

[brg444]

I am not yet convinced that forking the network for a 1MB change to the block size is "better than doing nothing".

Then please explain how Bitcoin scales to handle increased demand by users?
Don't forget that Pieter Wuille has said that sidechains are not a scaling solution. However, feel free to rebut that in your response.

My point is : is putting on the network the pressure of a hard fork to kick the can down the road just a bit is really worth it?

It seems a lot in this thread forget the danger of hard forks.

Increased demand has in fact been well answered by the network over the last few days. Strangely this is a rather encouraging fact that not too many people seem to mention or acknowledge.

To be clear I am not referring to shitty software and other amateurs node implementations. These got properly crushed because THEIR models and code were not able to handle the increased demand.

I feel much less urgency going forward... unless we hit a 5K$ bubble in the next coming months  

[cypherdoc]

Clearly, a rogue miner using FPGA tech was the thing Satoshi feared at that time. Satoshi did not always explain his actions and one reason for this is that detailing an attack vector increases the probability that it will be acted upon.

There's still ways to make nasty blocks.
Blocks as small as 8mb that would take >10 mins to verify, and radically expand the UTXO dataset.  It isn't as though we are out of the woods.  The economic incentive to do something like this is that the miner could be building on it immediately whereas everyone else is still verifying, (or they just skip doing that, which fine but brings its own set of issues).

why would you think a bloat block that large, so soon (while everyone else is mining 1MB), wouldn't get orphaned?  esp after seeing how the relay network appears to be having issues:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=766190.msg11898189#msg11898189

[cypherdoc]

Regarding >10 mins verification. Those monster tx of nearly 1MB took a lot of people by surprise, except Core Dev who knew about this risk and had a 100KB relay limit. Unfortunately the "nasty" 25 sec verification tx were out-of-band and fed directly into Discus Fish. Maybe tx size should be limited to 10% of block size limit at the protocol level and this needs to go in with any >1MB change?

you're referring to the 1MB single tx block that f2pool constructed as a non std tx to help reduce the UTXO set?

why was that a bad thing?  it was a one off to help consolidate all that dust and required that a miner self construct this type of block and transmit it.  that wouldn't be a repeatable, viable attack to inflict on the network by a rogue miner looking to gain an advantage over other miners for the following reasons:

1.  constructing an 8MB bloat block while the rest of the network is making 1MB blocks runs the severe risk of orphaning
2.  if the pool consists mainly of hashers, they would react by redirecting their hash away from the attacking pool to preserve the network
3.  if it was coming out of China from a large miner, that miner runs even more risk of orphaning due to the GFC.
4.  other miners receiving such a bloat block could react defensively by switching to mining a 0 tx block during the validation process.
5.  game theory suggests a miner wouldn't even begin to do this attack for preservation of BTC value and his hardware investment.

[cypherdoc]

solex, where do you go to get your mempool size info?  there seems to be discrepancies btwn sources.

[cypherdoc]

I am not yet convinced that forking the network for a 1MB change to the block size is "better than doing nothing".

Then please explain how Bitcoin scales to handle increased demand by users?
Don't forget that Pieter Wuille has said that sidechains are not a scaling solution. However, feel free to rebut that in your response.

My point is : is putting on the network the pressure of a hard fork to kick the can down the road just a bit is really worth it?

It seems a lot in this thread forget the danger of hard forks.

it's a reflection of how badly we want out from under a core dev regime who has abandoned Satoshi's original vision for their own involving proprietary products which they stand to profit from.  yes, i'd much rather hard fork back to a decentralized core dev, or no core dev at all, to a sound money platform that exists solely for the public good and allows widespread dissemination of Bitcoin to all corners of the earth for maximum decentralization and security.

Increased demand has in fact been well answered by the network over the last few days. Strangely this is a rather encouraging fact that not too many people seem to mention or acknowledge.

i've been saying just that as a perfect reason for why bigger blocks can be handled as evidenced by that continuous stream of full blocks occurring right on time. 

To be clear I am not referring to shitty software and other amateurs node implementations. These got properly crushed because THEIR models and code were not able to handle the increased demand.

I feel much less urgency going forward... unless we hit a 5K$ bubble in the next coming months  

yeah, Mycelium was your prime example of a wallet trying to establish a fee mkt in response to user frustration from unconf tx's.  now that they blow up, you throw them under the bus forgetting they were a justification for your argument in the first place.

[brg444]

yeah, Mycelium was your prime example of a wallet trying to establish a fee mkt in response to user frustration from unconf tx's.  now that they blow up, you throw them under the bus forgetting they were a justification for your argument in the first place.

why do you keep insisting on lies and misconstructions?

today it was my "prime example" and three day's ago it was ICEBreaker's... this is the bullshit I am talking about when I say I cannot trust anything that you write or even take you seriously.

don't get me wrong you are often making valid points and bring interesting observations but your manic habit to twist and turn around everything your way, right or not, true or false makes you lose face every time. i don't even believe you have any kind of malicious agenda but you need to stop trying to deceive people to try and make a point.