Bitcoin Forum
December 09, 2016, 02:03:11 AM *
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 ... 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 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1806733 times)
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
July 17, 2015, 03:34:43 AM
 #28961

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".

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
1481248991
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481248991

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481248991
Reply with quote  #2

1481248991
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481248991
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481248991

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481248991
Reply with quote  #2

1481248991
Report to moderator
1481248991
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481248991

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481248991
Reply with quote  #2

1481248991
Report to moderator
1481248991
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481248991

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481248991
Reply with quote  #2

1481248991
Report to moderator
solex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078


100 satoshis -> ISO code


View Profile
July 17, 2015, 03:45:55 AM
 #28962

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
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
July 17, 2015, 04:01:12 AM
 #28963

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  Smiley

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 17, 2015, 04:04:29 AM
 #28964

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 17, 2015, 04:18:18 AM
 #28965


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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 17, 2015, 04:23:45 AM
 #28966

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

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 17, 2015, 04:43:22 AM
 #28967

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.
Quote

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. 
Quote

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  Smiley

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
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
July 17, 2015, 04:56:50 AM
 #28968

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.

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 17, 2015, 05:13:53 AM
 #28969

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.

when i say "you", i'm referring in general to the Cripplecoiners like you who have been pointing at Mycelium and saying "see, i told you so".

and yes, my pt still stands.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 17, 2015, 05:28:39 AM
 #28970

oh my.  i hadn't looked at this one for a long time.  the ETF plumbing new yearly lows.  so sorry iCEBlow, tvbcof, & traderCJ:

solex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078


100 satoshis -> ISO code


View Profile
July 17, 2015, 06:02:40 AM
 #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.

solex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078


100 satoshis -> ISO code


View Profile
July 17, 2015, 06:29:32 AM
 #28972

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  Smiley

AHA! Now I see your perspective, you don't actually understand that the 1MB is effectively a limit on the number of people who can use Bitcoin.

Consider these global information technology services:

Google internet search
Facebook social media
Twitter public messaging

At some stage all of these were small.
Google would not have supported more than 2000 users doing searches in a 10 minute period.
Facebook would not have supported more than 2000 users updating their profiles in a 10 minute period.
Twitter would not have supported more than 2000 users sending out tweets in a 10 minute period.

Before these user counts were reached in each case these services were OK for the small number of people who used them. However, and I think the question is very obvious "What would have happened in each case if they had not scaled their services to cope with 10x, 100x or even 1000x as many users?"

I am not going to bother answering that, but I will add that every situation is different, so the timescales involved in necessary scaling are different. The absolute in each case is that necessary scaling cannot be ignored - and wasn't.

Zarathustra
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 938


View Profile
July 17, 2015, 06:46:45 AM
 #28973

(...)

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

Translation:

I feel much less urgency going forward... unless something happens that happened regularly in the bitcoin environment.


Great perspectives.

"Staat nenne ich's, wo alle Gifttrinker sind, Gute und Schlimme: Staat, wo alle sich selber verlieren, Gute und Schlimme:
Staat, wo der langsame Selbstmord aller – »das Leben« heisst."
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 17, 2015, 11:49:36 AM
 #28974

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  Smiley

AHA! Now I see your perspective, you don't actually understand that the 1MB is effectively a limit on the number of people who can use Bitcoin.

Consider these global information technology services:

Google internet search
Facebook social media
Twitter public messaging

At some stage all of these were small.
Google would not have supported more than 2000 users doing searches in a 10 minute period.
Facebook would not have supported more than 2000 users updating their profiles in a 10 minute period.
Twitter would not have supported more than 2000 users sending out tweets in a 10 minute period.

Before these user counts were reached in each case these services were OK for the small number of people who used them. However, and I think the question is very obvious "What would have happened in each case if they had not scaled their services to cope with 10x, 100x or even 1000x as many users?"

I am not going to bother answering that, but I will add that every situation is different, so the timescales involved in necessary scaling are different. The absolute in each case is that necessary scaling cannot be ignored - and wasn't.


He also made a comment up thread that blocks aren't getting filled regularly. Don't know where he has been getting  that.
hdbuck
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1134



View Profile
July 17, 2015, 12:51:48 PM
 #28975

China Increases Gold Holdings By 57% "In One Month" In First Official Update Since 2009

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-07-17/china-increases-gold-holdings-57-one-month-first-official-update-2009
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
July 17, 2015, 01:26:23 PM
 #28976

China Increases Gold Holdings By 57% "In One Month" In First Official Update Since 2009

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-07-17/china-increases-gold-holdings-57-one-month-first-official-update-2009

So it took 6 years, not one month, but...
That passes up Russia for the 5th largest hoard.
Actual billboard in Bangkok near airport:



Grats, China.

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, 02:06:42 PM
 #28977

China Increases Gold Holdings By 57% "In One Month" In First Official Update Since 2009

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-07-17/china-increases-gold-holdings-57-one-month-first-official-update-2009

What did i say back in 2011?  Central banks are terrible at investing.

Gold collapsing. Bitcoin up.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 17, 2015, 02:19:03 PM
 #28978

i am so sorry.  gold off the cliff:



but at least one thing is going up and breaking out.  note the red arrow entry:

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 17, 2015, 02:22:45 PM
 #28979

i mean the alarms are ringing, the bells are clanging, the red flags are flapping, the hands are waving; for 4 yrs now.

these mining charts are just fugly:



Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330



View Profile
July 17, 2015, 02:54:58 PM
 #28980

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.

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
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 ... 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!