Bitcoin Forum
December 10, 2016, 05:13:20 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 ... 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 1500 1501 1502 1503 1504 1505 1506 1507 1508 1509 1510 1511 1512 1513 1514 1515 1516 1517 1518 1519 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1807536 times)
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1988


View Profile
July 26, 2015, 06:26:03 PM
 #29361


if memory serves both Adam Back and Joseph Poon said that SC and LN respectively needed a bigger block in any case.

(I'm actually in a hurry as soon as I've time I'll post reference to the source)

Sure.  Everyone is concerned about the transaction rate.  SC and LN do not obviate the need for performing on-chain transactions.  They simply make it possible to do lesser importance transactions without bloating the Blockchain or trying to morph Bitcoin into a real-time system.

From an operational perspective everyone benefits from a higher transaction rate.  The main thing is that if the higher transaction rates in Bitcoin results in subversion of if as the core value store then everything goes up in smoke and we've got to start over from scratch (which, as I've said, is not without it's own set of pros and cons.)


1481346800
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481346800

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481346800
Reply with quote  #2

1481346800
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481346800
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481346800

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481346800
Reply with quote  #2

1481346800
Report to moderator
1481346800
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481346800

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481346800
Reply with quote  #2

1481346800
Report to moderator
1481346800
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481346800

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481346800
Reply with quote  #2

1481346800
Report to moderator
WhatsBitcoin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 406


View Profile
July 26, 2015, 06:32:15 PM
 #29362

Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

Finally!

Get sick. Get well.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 26, 2015, 06:44:35 PM
 #29363

There goes the argument by Cripplecoiners of not being able to run a full node from behind Tor with bigger blocks:

http://bitcoinist.net/hornet-combines-user-privacy-high-speed-internet-bitcoin-implications-possible/
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 26, 2015, 06:47:41 PM
 #29364

I've you conceptualize that core  dev determination of block size is central planning, then  it becomes clear why it doesn't  work.
That's exactly what Pierre Rochard demostrated whith his replies when I criticized Peter Todd during the "network stress test":

Quote from: petertoddbtc
Peter Todd ‏@petertoddbtc 7 lug

The transaction backlog is like a large crowd of orphans standing outside Sotheby's trying to buy Picasso's for spare change.
Quote from: ilporticodipinto


Nice!

BTW, were you the same Dusty that responded in Rusty Russell's last  blog post?
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 26, 2015, 07:29:59 PM
 #29365

I've mentioned this before. Two years ago during the San Jose conference, I made this prediction in one of my newsletter posts. Glad to see other mainstream news organizations beginning to recognize this:

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21659745-silicon-valley-should-be-celebrated-its-insularity-risks-backlash-empire-geeks
solex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078


100 satoshis -> ISO code


View Profile
July 26, 2015, 11:42:52 PM
 #29366

So they are trying to solve the ever increasing burden of running a full node for a non miner indirectly, through the mean of a side effect of an anti-DoS mechanism.

Am I right?

if I'm correct, It seems to me a rather convoluted way of thinking, why not just say that instead of use the fee pressure rhetoric?

why not embrace JR's free market idea for full node services?

Yes, absolutely. That's what I think is the central plank of the informed pro-1MB opinion.
This question can be turned around: "After 5 years is the 1MB hard-limit the best anti-DoS mechanism that Bitcoin dev can come up with?"
Answer no, because the real anti-DoS protection comes from the consensus dust-limit and fee policy. This is what has kept the average block size to something reflecting real market demand, otherwise blocks would have been constantly bumping the 1MB since 2011/12 where real ecosystem traffic would have to crowd out spam with fee pressure alone, as a "normal" state of affairs. Effectively, this is 5 years of proof that a hard block limit is not needed, with the 32.5MB message size limit still remaining as a sanity check.

The market for node services will certainly be a major feature of successful cryptocurrency in the years ahead, but again, requires more time to develop, and co-ordination than can quickly be expected. Also, I suspect that work on SC and LN has potentially more scope for individual profit than work on a real free market for node services. TBH, that is OK, it is human nature to work on what has the most scope for individual gain, especially for long periods of time.
The solution to accelerating work on node services payment channels is indirect incentives for the developers of it. Monetizing it.

smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246



View Profile
July 27, 2015, 12:10:05 AM
 #29367

if memory serves both Adam Back and Joseph Poon said that SC and LN respectively needed a bigger block in any case.

(I'm actually in a hurry as soon as I've time I'll post reference to the source)

There is a huge difference between "a bigger block" and proposing to scale block sizes upward to the moon in an attempt to meet the core scaling demands of the system that way.
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246



View Profile
July 27, 2015, 12:12:46 AM
 #29368

"After 5 years is the 1MB hard-limit the best anti-DoS mechanism that Bitcoin dev can come up with?"
Answer no, because the real anti-DoS protection comes from the consensus dust-limit and fee policy.

False. The dust limit and fee policy are not part of the consensus code (which the 1 MB limit is).

So the answer is in fact yes: There is no other anti-DoS mechanism in the consensus code after 5 years.

Proposing to add one is one possibility. Have at it.



solex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078


100 satoshis -> ISO code


View Profile
July 27, 2015, 12:26:08 AM
 #29369

"After 5 years is the 1MB hard-limit the best anti-DoS mechanism that Bitcoin dev can come up with?"
Answer no, because the real anti-DoS protection comes from the consensus dust-limit and fee policy.

False. The dust limit and fee policy are not part of the consensus code (which the 1 MB limit is).

So the answer is in fact yes: There is no other anti-DoS mechanism in the consensus code after 5 years.

Proposing to add one is one possibility. Have at it.

consensus dust-limit and fee policy.

Policy which is observed by a super-majority of nodes is effectively a consensus. Also the message size limit is anti-DoS

smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246



View Profile
July 27, 2015, 12:48:48 AM
 #29370

"After 5 years is the 1MB hard-limit the best anti-DoS mechanism that Bitcoin dev can come up with?"
Answer no, because the real anti-DoS protection comes from the consensus dust-limit and fee policy.

False. The dust limit and fee policy are not part of the consensus code (which the 1 MB limit is).

So the answer is in fact yes: There is no other anti-DoS mechanism in the consensus code after 5 years.

Proposing to add one is one possibility. Have at it.

consensus dust-limit and fee policy.

Policy which is observed by a super-majority of nodes is effectively a consensus. Also the message size limit is anti-DoS

That's incorrect, and I think someone (Adam?) recently wrote up some good stuff about the role of "nodes"

In order to matter, policies have to be enforced by either:

1. The node you are using, with respect to your own coins (your own node validates your coins, so you can't be fooled). Of course this only matters if others agree with you, or you have created an altcoin with a userbase of one (useless)

2. All nodes, or essentially all nodes.

"A majority of nodes" accomplishes essentially nothing. That is the entire point of the bitcoin design ("majority of nodes" is not sybil-resistant).


brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
July 27, 2015, 04:07:28 AM
 #29371

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3eprag/this_little_kit_has_everything_i_need_to_run_a/cth8v9s

Fantastic representation of redditards ass-backward logic.  Cheesy

"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
Cconvert2G36
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 392


View Profile
July 27, 2015, 04:16:13 AM
 #29372


oh hai



Less than 3 tps isn't going to cut it on the main chain, even in the reasonably near future, let alone forever.

brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
July 27, 2015, 04:18:40 AM
 #29373


oh hai



Less than 3 tps isn't going to cut it on the main chain, even in the reasonably near future, let alone forever.



Then you should tell your friend over there on reddit that he should cancel his order while there is still time  Wink

"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
Cconvert2G36
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 392


View Profile
July 27, 2015, 04:21:29 AM
 #29374


oh hai



Less than 3 tps isn't going to cut it on the main chain, even in the reasonably near future, let alone forever.



Then you should tell your friend over there on reddit that he should cancel his order while there is still time  Wink

If I used reddit I would. Even the 1MB foreva mantra leaves joe blow public with unreasonable hardware demands given enough time.

Edit: For context, I think a fee market for block space is an absolute necessity... eventually. But not when we get 25 btc every ten minutes. At this point in the distribution curve, incentivizing more transactions and more use is paramount. And as long as my 5 year old amd machine can easily handle 2-8MB blocks, and we have a statement from major miners saying they can too, I'm for it.
Dusty
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 722


Libertas a calumnia


View Profile WWW
July 27, 2015, 06:48:27 AM
 #29375

Nice!

BTW, were you the same Dusty that responded in Rusty Russell's last  blog post?
Yes I am.

Articoli bitcoin: Il portico dipinto
sickpig
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106


View Profile
July 27, 2015, 11:13:59 AM
 #29376

if memory serves both Adam Back and Joseph Poon said that SC and LN respectively needed a bigger block in any case.

(I'm actually in a hurry as soon as I've time I'll post reference to the source)

There is a huge difference between "a bigger block" and proposing to scale block sizes upward to the moon in an attempt to meet the core scaling demands of the system that way.


Sure there's a big difference and I was not endorsing any particular proposal on the table, be it BIP 100, 101, 102 you name it.

I just wanted to make clear that all the parties (modulo MP) agree on the fact that in a way or another the 1MB max block size has to be changed.

 

Bitcoin is a participatory system which ought to respect the right of self determinism of all of its users - Gregory Maxwell.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 27, 2015, 11:18:55 AM
 #29377

Nice!

BTW, were you the same Dusty that responded in Rusty Russell's last  blog post?
Yes I am.


That was beautiful:  putting Rusty in his place.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 27, 2015, 11:28:00 AM
 #29378

They were lying to you then, and they're lying to you now:

“I am positive that we will see state support emerging again in the next two days,” said Zhang."

http://www.wsj.com/articles/asian-stocks-fall-pressured-by-weak-earnings-overseas-1437961185
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 938



View Profile
July 27, 2015, 12:47:30 PM
 #29379

At the request of Smoothie, here is an updated chart of the average block sizes.  With the spam coming to an end, we've dropped out of the red-zone:



In other news, I'm presently in Paris and looking to meet up over coffee or wine with any nearby Bitcoiners.  I'm meeting some people from Ledger Wallet on Tuesday at La Maison du Bitcoin, but if there's any readers/posters from Paris who'd like to chat bitcoin…send me a PM!

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

Activity: 924



View Profile
July 27, 2015, 01:41:42 PM
 #29380

They were lying to you then, and they're lying to you now:

“I am positive that we will see state support emerging again in the next two days,” said Zhang."

http://www.wsj.com/articles/asian-stocks-fall-pressured-by-weak-earnings-overseas-1437961185

The Chinese average joes are so gullible.  Did it never occur to them that Bejing and the PBOC took up sizable market positions years ago, engineered the recent market bubble, then dumped on the retail investors?  

So their Chinese gov't has no intention of doing anything except continuing to play the market right now, as they ARE the whale traders in their market right now.
Pages: « 1 ... 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 1500 1501 1502 1503 1504 1505 1506 1507 1508 1509 1510 1511 1512 1513 1514 1515 1516 1517 1518 1519 ... 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!