Bitcoin Forum
July 20, 2017, 11:04:53 PM *
News: Are you prepared for Aug 1 / BIP148?
 
   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 ... 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 1478 1479 1480 1481 1482 1483 1484 1485 1486 1487 1488 1489 1490 1491 1492 1493 1494 1495 1496 1497 1498 1499 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1932198 times)
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 17, 2015, 04:14:33 PM
 #28961

if financial elites like Krugman believe users/participants are the key to Metcalfe's Law and growing the internet, then Bitcoin should be employing strategies that attempt achieve the opposite of what he believes; grow it's users/participants:

The growth of the Internet will slow drastically, as the flaw in “Metcalfe’s law” — which states that the number of potential connections in a network is proportional to the square of the number of participants — becomes apparent: most people have nothing to say to each other!

By 2005 or so, it will become clear that the Internet’s impact on the economy has been no greater than the fax machine’s.


https://fee.org/anythingpeaceful/detail/krugman-is-clueless-about-bitcoin

how we gonna do that with Cripplecoin and Wuille's admission that SC's & LN don't scale Bitcoin?
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1358



View Profile
July 17, 2015, 04:37:39 PM
 #28962

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."  

 Angry  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.

Please tell us how you see Bitcoin growing, and how you propose to prevent DOS by limiting block size, this seems like an oxymoron to me.


I'd also like to highlight a point that reflects ignorance on how the economics of Bitcoin incentives work, it is repeated by the "lets limit block size for now proponents", and that is that transaction costs are unrealistically low, or the cost of a transaction is not reflected in the TX fee or the market for TX fees is insufficient to sustain Bitcoin and this is a problem.

Bitcoin has been undergoing massive inflation, that inflation is subsidizing mining. Miners are being subsidized to grow the network infrastructure with a 25 BTC block subsidy every 10 minutes. This subsidy is an empirical part of Bitcoin and it is gradually removed in a disruptive but constructive manner essential to Bitcoin's growth, it has another benefit in that it reduces the cost of TX fees, and grows to protect the value stored in the network while it is small and vulnerable.

It is dishonest to claim transaction costs are low without pointing out that they are being subsidized and the subsidy is designed to reduce over time slowly enough to allow market driven prices to evolve.

It is also premature to centrally enforce protocol changes to manage or manipulate market driven transaction costs while those invested in Bitcoin are subsidizing the inflation and the actual cost transaction cost.


blocksize has nothing to do with DDOS.
transaction fees, on the other hand..
they are just bound to skyrocket at some point - but that would ensure safety and integrity of the network, regardless of blocksize.

bitcoin is a privilege, bitcoin is a worldwide decentralized network.

it wont save neither greece, nor the "africans" (such fucking racist argument BTW..).
you wont be able to buy frappucinos with bitcoins, nor any other immediate useless consumption carp..
remember: p-r-i-v-i-l-e-g-e

we lucky - & screw the mass Smiley

iCE called limiting block size "a sanity check/DOS regulator" you say it has nothing to do with increasing transactions ie DOS but more to do with transaction fees, (which are heavily subsidized) at this point in time.

So why do we need to "limit block size for now" in that case?

I don't see the mechanism that will make transaction fees sky rocket, the only one that will function in a free market is limiting block size.

The next question is why do you think that's a good idea?

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2212


View Profile
July 17, 2015, 05:08:36 PM
 #28963

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."  

 Angry  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.

Finally got around to listening to it while having my morning coffee (which tends to last until afternoon and was not bought with BTC.)

I'd say your suspicion is likely correct.  The part I was listening to when I pecked out this note was the guy explaining away the 'privatized gains/socialized losses' in the mainstream system as being associated with spreading the cost of theft and fraud around.  The guy completely neglected what I suspect to be the major cost in mainstream-land which would be the cost of spying on and regulating individual users at the behest of the govt.  There are good reasons to ignore this cost from these guys perspective because they expect to channel Bitcoin into an evolutionary path where it does this only better.  Whenever I hear someone make a big deal about standard Libertarian principles but subtly leave out large and important blocks I get suspicious.


Pruden
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 480

Spanish Bitcoin trader


View Profile
July 17, 2015, 05:18:48 PM
 #28964

you can't say stocks don't give you a chance to get out.  get ready for the next roll:


Indeed, yesterday there were hundreds New-52-week-Lows while big indexes had a great day and VIX went down to 12... The kind of short opportunity you get every few months.
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2212


View Profile
July 17, 2015, 05:23:09 PM
 #28965


blocksize has nothing to do with DDOS.
transaction fees, on the other hand..
they are just bound to skyrocket at some point - but that would ensure safety and integrity of the network, regardless of blocksize.

bitcoin is a privilege, bitcoin is a worldwide decentralized network.

it wont save neither greece, nor the "africans" (such fucking racist argument BTW..).
you wont be able to buy frappucinos with bitcoins, nor any other immediate useless consumption carp..
remember: p-r-i-v-i-l-e-g-e

we lucky - & screw the mass Smiley

Distributed crypto-currency solutions have the potential to support 'the masses' no matter what their position in life by taking over certain functions of government when and organized and 'standard' government fails to serve the people.

Bitcoin will hopefully end up being a part of this process, but will fail and will in fact become part of the problem if it is subverted.  The most likely way this subversion would happen would be that it is induced to outgrow itself and centralize.  That concept is the source of my desire to see things 'go slow and with caution' with respect to the blocksize (and other things.)

In other words, it is absolutely the lesser of two evils to reserve the use of Bitcoin itself to those who are positioned to support it in a net-positive manner and plan on Bitcoin being a key element in a foundation upon which solutions which can realistically support disadvantaged people can be built.

To me, and I suspect many others, the 'restriction' in native used of Bitcoin via fees or anything else is pretty much exactly the opposite of 'screw the masses'.  It's just that there is an added layer of complexity which might make it look that way to the casual observer.


Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1358



View Profile
July 17, 2015, 05:50:52 PM
 #28966


Finally got around to listening to it while having my morning coffee (which tends to last until afternoon and was not bought with BTC.)


another productive member of society dispersers into the wild after realizing bitcoin profit, while he doesn't buy coffee with Bitcoin ( unlike Adam Back who advocates bitcoin should be good for coffee) it's unclear if he left the proverbial note: "Who is John Galt?" before embarking.

 Wink


Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2212


View Profile
July 17, 2015, 05:59:41 PM
 #28967


Finally got around to listening to it while having my morning coffee (which tends to last until afternoon and was not bought with BTC.)

another productive member of society dispersers into the wild after realizing bitcoin profit, while he doesn't buy coffee with Bitcoin ( unlike Adam Back who advocates bitcoin should be good for coffee) it's unclear if he left the proverbial note: "Who is John Galt?" before embarking.

 Wink

I agree that 'bitcoin should be good for coffee' with the caveat that it should be done (in cup-sized quantities) by use of a proxy.  Exactly the type of thing that Blockstream seems to be working on in fact.


cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 17, 2015, 06:16:27 PM
 #28968

you can't say stocks don't give you a chance to get out.  get ready for the next roll:


Indeed, yesterday there were hundreds New-52-week-Lows while big indexes had a great day and VIX went down to 12... The kind of short opportunity you get every few months.

glad to see you see the light.

and it makes sense, if you believe TPTB intervene in the markets to manipulate upwards.  they buy the $DJI, the most easily manipulable and high profile index to sway public opinion.
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
July 17, 2015, 06:54:44 PM
 #28969

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

Lately I am using tradeblock as their site is fast and informative. https://tradeblock.com/blockchain
For some reason the leadership at blockchain.info has become rudderless and their site is often not keeping up and development there seems static. My impression anyway.

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.

Yes. The block which reduced the utxo set. That was the good part (though Greg posted on irc that it could have been constructed much more efficiently). Anyway, the bad part is that validation took 25 secs (because of all the inputs). Bitcoin full nodes have no way at present to look at a block and decide to orphan it in advance because it is a "bloat block" that will take too long to validate, they will all chug through the block first.You are probably right bloat blocks would not propagate fast enough and get orphaned.

I think something is being missed here.  The block is not a 'bloat block' more of a 'bloat transaction'.
It will propagate just as fast as the other blocks, the size is not the issue so much as the construction.

This issue arises when larger blocks are permitted.  Though even at 1mb block construction can be made to be disadvantageous to other miners in order to increase the validation time.

I am not pretending that there is no resolution to this, only that there is not yet one implemented.  It is more important to develop in order rather than rush in a fix to 1mb block limits for which we are not ready, or one which is poorly designed.

FREE MONEY1 Bitcoin for Silver and Gold NewLibertyDollar.com and now BITCOIN SPECIE (silver 1 ozt) shows value by QR
Bulk premiums as low as .0012 BTC "BETTER, MORE COLLECTIBLE, AND CHEAPER THAN SILVER EAGLES" 1Free of Government
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162



View Profile
July 17, 2015, 08:28:18 PM
 #28970

Looks like miners are refusing to process spam. A lot of small blocks 130k-250k

365759    11 minutes    443    4,100.18 BTC    F2Pool    245.87
365758    18 minutes    395    1,025.98 BTC    BW.COM    926.96
365757    18 minutes    241    2,372.34 BTC    BTCChina Pool    130.5
365756    22 minutes    464    4,485.79 BTC    BTCChina Pool    242.17
365755    29 minutes    1107    15,025.43 BTC    F2Pool    627.49
365754    43 minutes    253    1,468.09 BTC    F2Pool    244.03
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 17, 2015, 08:41:10 PM
 #28971

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

Lately I am using tradeblock as their site is fast and informative. https://tradeblock.com/blockchain
For some reason the leadership at blockchain.info has become rudderless and their site is often not keeping up and development there seems static. My impression anyway.

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.

Yes. The block which reduced the utxo set. That was the good part (though Greg posted on irc that it could have been constructed much more efficiently). Anyway, the bad part is that validation took 25 secs (because of all the inputs). Bitcoin full nodes have no way at present to look at a block and decide to orphan it in advance because it is a "bloat block" that will take too long to validate, they will all chug through the block first.You are probably right bloat blocks would not propagate fast enough and get orphaned.

I think something is being missed here.  The block is not a 'bloat block' more of a 'bloat transaction'.
It will propagate just as fast as the other blocks, the size is not the issue so much as the construction.

This issue arises when larger blocks are permitted.  Though even at 1mb block construction can be made to be disadvantageous to other miners in order to increase the validation time.


the above 2 statements appear to be inconsistent.  the bloat tx does indeed take longer to propagate; 25 sec:

http://rusty.ozlabs.org/?p=522

Rusty got a bit overzealous in his pessimism as was pointed out in the comments by Dusty, who may be the Dusty who pops in here every once in a while:

Dusty | July 9, 2015 at 11:28 pm

> “If you can mine one of those, you can keep competitors off your heels forever, and own the bitcoin network… Well, probably not.”

In fact not: if a block takes too long to be verified nobody builds on it and your block get orphaned (miners build only on blocks they’ve verified… or at least they should).

So you lose the time you hashed and your reward: next time you’ll probably learn the lesson and create a smaller block Smiley


Quote
I am not pretending that there is no resolution to this, only that there is not yet one implemented.  It is more important to develop in order rather than rush in a fix to 1mb block limits for which we are not ready, or one which is poorly designed.

i wonder if that is true.  it's possible that everything exists in the protocol now along with the game theory, as it stands, to encourage miners not to bloat blocks for the fear of orphaning and preservation of network value.
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
July 17, 2015, 08:51:08 PM
 #28972

I see your confusion.  You've confused propagation with verification.

Again, this isn't about creating a too-big block, or even an especially large one (though the larger it is the longer the verification time can be).
It is about creating blocks of acceptable size with valid but complex transactions.

Yes, other miners may decide to implement some trap for blocks that take a long time to verify.  Doing so runs the risk that not everyone else will do that, and get stuck mining on the not-longest chain.

If the block is discarded and they continue on the previous, then they are forking at risk of orphaning.  Either way the miners have a risk and the complicated TX miner has an advantage... unless everyone does the same thing (and they won't).

FREE MONEY1 Bitcoin for Silver and Gold NewLibertyDollar.com and now BITCOIN SPECIE (silver 1 ozt) shows value by QR
Bulk premiums as low as .0012 BTC "BETTER, MORE COLLECTIBLE, AND CHEAPER THAN SILVER EAGLES" 1Free of Government
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 17, 2015, 08:51:32 PM
 #28973

Looks like miners are refusing to process spam. A lot of small blocks 130k-250k

365759    11 minutes    443    4,100.18 BTC    F2Pool    245.87
365758    18 minutes    395    1,025.98 BTC    BW.COM    926.96
365757    18 minutes    241    2,372.34 BTC    BTCChina Pool    130.5
365756    22 minutes    464    4,485.79 BTC    BTCChina Pool    242.17
365755    29 minutes    1107    15,025.43 BTC    F2Pool    627.49
365754    43 minutes    253    1,468.09 BTC    F2Pool    244.03

that is evidence that miners can indeed control spam or bloated blocks that attempt to attack the network.

lift the limit entirely.
TheRealSteve
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686

FUN > ROI


View Profile
July 17, 2015, 08:59:03 PM
 #28974

Looks like miners are refusing to process spam. A lot of small blocks 130k-250k
Just the usual suspects.

Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162



View Profile
July 17, 2015, 08:59:25 PM
 #28975

Looks like miners are refusing to process spam. A lot of small blocks 130k-250k

365759    11 minutes    443    4,100.18 BTC    F2Pool    245.87
365758    18 minutes    395    1,025.98 BTC    BW.COM    926.96
365757    18 minutes    241    2,372.34 BTC    BTCChina Pool    130.5
365756    22 minutes    464    4,485.79 BTC    BTCChina Pool    242.17
365755    29 minutes    1107    15,025.43 BTC    F2Pool    627.49
365754    43 minutes    253    1,468.09 BTC    F2Pool    244.03

that is evidence that miners can indeed control spam or bloated blocks that attempt to attack the network.

lift the limit entirely.

This is also evidence that we are currently using 20% of network capacity. (and 80% of load was only temporary spamming)
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 17, 2015, 09:05:56 PM
 #28976

I see your confusion.  You've confused propagation with verification.

Again, this isn't about creating a too-big block, or even an especially large one (though the larger it is the longer the verification time can be).
It is about creating blocks of acceptable size with valid but complex transactions.

Yes, other miners may decide to implement some trap for blocks that take a long time to verify.  Doing so runs the risk that not everyone else will do that, and get stuck mining on the not-longest chain.

If the block is discarded and they continue on the previous, then they are forking at risk of orphaning.  Either way the miners have a risk and the complicated TX miner has an advantage... unless everyone does the same thing (and they won't).

does your above argument depend on the existence of the relay network or not?
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 17, 2015, 09:15:06 PM
 #28977

Looks like miners are refusing to process spam. A lot of small blocks 130k-250k

365759    11 minutes    443    4,100.18 BTC    F2Pool    245.87
365758    18 minutes    395    1,025.98 BTC    BW.COM    926.96
365757    18 minutes    241    2,372.34 BTC    BTCChina Pool    130.5
365756    22 minutes    464    4,485.79 BTC    BTCChina Pool    242.17
365755    29 minutes    1107    15,025.43 BTC    F2Pool    627.49
365754    43 minutes    253    1,468.09 BTC    F2Pool    244.03

that is evidence that miners can indeed control spam or bloated blocks that attempt to attack the network.

lift the limit entirely.

This is also evidence that we are currently using 20% of network capacity. (and 80% of load was only temporary spamming)

first off, my argument that miners can control spam and bloated blocks trumps your argument.

second, it's clear that the spamming started at about 50% of full blocks:



third, i agree that there is spamming going on by attackers wanting to disrupt user growth, imo.  the fact that the network responded well to weeks of full blocks w/o breaking down is yet again an argument for bigger blocks; we're perfectly capable of handling them

fourth, b/c the network is perfectly capable of handling the extra load, idealistically, tx's should be kept on MC to feed miners long term as we transition away from block rewards to fee based security.  this is needed for maximum decentralization and security.
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162



View Profile
July 17, 2015, 10:03:42 PM
 #28978

Looks like miners are refusing to process spam. A lot of small blocks 130k-250k

365759    11 minutes    443    4,100.18 BTC    F2Pool    245.87
365758    18 minutes    395    1,025.98 BTC    BW.COM    926.96
365757    18 minutes    241    2,372.34 BTC    BTCChina Pool    130.5
365756    22 minutes    464    4,485.79 BTC    BTCChina Pool    242.17
365755    29 minutes    1107    15,025.43 BTC    F2Pool    627.49
365754    43 minutes    253    1,468.09 BTC    F2Pool    244.03

that is evidence that miners can indeed control spam or bloated blocks that attempt to attack the network.

lift the limit entirely.

This is also evidence that we are currently using 20% of network capacity. (and 80% of load was only temporary spamming)

first off, my argument that miners can control spam and bloated blocks trumps your argument.

second, it's clear that the spamming started at about 50% of full blocks:



third, i agree that there is spamming going on by attackers wanting to disrupt user growth, imo.  the fact that the network responded well to weeks of full blocks w/o breaking down is yet again an argument for bigger blocks; we're perfectly capable of handling them

fourth, b/c the network is perfectly capable of handling the extra load, idealistically, tx's should be kept on MC to feed miners long term as we transition away from block rewards to fee based security.  this is needed for maximum decentralization and security.

 - Bitcoin transaction fee market. (requires pressure on fees)
 - Increased fees will be forcing new services to be built. So there is no need to change/centralize bitcoin protocol.
solex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078


100 satoshis -> ISO code


View Profile
July 17, 2015, 11:10:42 PM
 #28979

I see your confusion.  You've confused propagation with verification.

Again, this isn't about creating a too-big block, or even an especially large one (though the larger it is the longer the verification time can be).
It is about creating blocks of acceptable size with valid but complex transactions.

Yes, other miners may decide to implement some trap for blocks that take a long time to verify.  Doing so runs the risk that not everyone else will do that, and get stuck mining on the not-longest chain.

If the block is discarded and they continue on the previous, then they are forking at risk of orphaning.  Either way the miners have a risk and the complicated TX miner has an advantage... unless everyone does the same thing (and they won't).

does your above argument depend on the existence of the relay network or not?

The debate might be helped with a graphic of network topology types. Bitcoin is the bottom right "irregular" type, except far larger and messier than the simple example here. This makes it infinitely more robust than all the other types. Call that Satoshi genius or simply an emergent property of decentralization or both.



Let's say that a "rogue" block gets mined by a node and sent to its peers. For illustration this might be too big for most bandwidth e.g. 100MB (leaving aside the message size limits) or a deviously constructed bloated tx block of 5MB which takes 3 hours to validate. If this rogue block can't be efficiently handled then it borks the node's immediate peers for a period of time. However, the rest of the network continues in a viable state. If the block is finally processed the invs to the next peers get ignored because the chain has moved on and the rogue block orphaned.

We immediately see that a fully-connected network has a far higher risk of systemic failure because a rogue block could seize up all nodes simultaneously, yet an irregular (mesh or multi-hop) network will be largely unaffected. Each node having just a dozen connections means that the other 6000 nodes keep on tracking oblivious to the rogue block. This is a reason why "5 nodes worldwide" is useless, and thousands are best.

This design feature is compromised if nodes forward blocks without validation, or if a central block transmission method exists which makes the mining topology more like a bus or star. That's one reason why I really like IBLT as a block propagation efficiency method: it retains the inherent robustness of an irregular topology when all nodes participate in being able to encode (mine) and decode (read, verify).

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 17, 2015, 11:31:55 PM
 #28980

I see your confusion.  You've confused propagation with verification.

Again, this isn't about creating a too-big block, or even an especially large one (though the larger it is the longer the verification time can be).
It is about creating blocks of acceptable size with valid but complex transactions.

Yes, other miners may decide to implement some trap for blocks that take a long time to verify.  Doing so runs the risk that not everyone else will do that, and get stuck mining on the not-longest chain.

If the block is discarded and they continue on the previous, then they are forking at risk of orphaning.  Either way the miners have a risk and the complicated TX miner has an advantage... unless everyone does the same thing (and they won't).

does your above argument depend on the existence of the relay network or not?

The debate might be helped with a graphic of network topolgy types. Bitcoin is the bottom right "irregular" type, except far larger and messier than the simple example here. This makes it infinitely more robust than all the other types. Call that Satoshi genius or simply an emergent property of decentralization or both.



Let's say that a "rogue" block gets mined by a node and sent to its peers. For illustration this might be too big for most bandwidth e.g. 100MB (leaving aside the message size limits) or a deviously constructed bloated tx block of 5MB which takes 3 hours to validate. If this rogue block can't be efficiently handled then it borks the node's immediate peers for a period of time. However, the rest of the network continues in a viable state. If the block is finally processed the invs to the next peers get ignored because the chain has moved on and the rogue block orphaned.

We immediately see that a fully-connected network has a far higher risk of systemic failure because a rogue block could seize up all nodes simultaneously, yet an irregular (mesh or multi-hop) network will be largely unaffected. Each node having just a dozen connections means that the other 6000 nodes keep on tracking obvious of the rogue block. This is a reason why "5 nodes worldwide" is useless, and thousands are best.

This design feature is compromised if nodes forward blocks without validation, or if a central block transmission method exists which makes the mining topology more like a bus or star. That's one reason why I really like IBLT as a block propagation efficiency method: it retains the inherent robustness of an irregular topology when all nodes participate in being able to encode (mine) and decode (read, verify).


i think this is the right answer, relay network or not, as we see that it can't even help the Chinese miners trapped behind the GFC thus preventing the long FUD'd large miner, large block attack on small miners.

you're right that a complex block nor a bloated block can be progated along by full nodes if it takes too long to validate thus causing orphaning.  that's a good thing and a check on miner attacks even tho game theory suggests they wouldn't want to do this attack anyways b/c of the repercussions to their bottom line.
Pages: « 1 ... 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 1478 1479 1480 1481 1482 1483 1484 1485 1486 1487 1488 1489 1490 1491 1492 1493 1494 1495 1496 1497 1498 1499 ... 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!