Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[HeliKopterBen]

so if I understand correctly Peter's "landmark paper" rise to the top was.."short like leprechaun".

http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/009916.html

a valiant effort I guess. getting some more peer-review probably would've been of better judgment?

ps. I'm not against you "crowd-sourcing" your grammar but I thought the whole exercise on reddit made your thread unreadable.

I don't see how proportion of hash rate has anything to do with orphan rate.  Each broadcast block has the same chance of being orphaned as the next broadcast block, regardless of your proportion of hashrate, with network speed and connectivity being the only major variable.  He needs to show some peterr-style analysis.

It is simple. You never orphan your own blocks. So if you have hypothetically a 99% hash rate you will have an orphan rate that is <1% regardless of propagation time. Someone else on the same network may have an orphan rate that is much greater than 1% given high propagation time.

The numbers work out differently with a more realistic hash rate share (say 15%) but the principle is the same. The higher your share the more of an advantage you get from the prevailing orphan rate being high.

Ok that makes sense

[1714285977]

1714285977

[1714285977]

1714285977

[NewLiberty]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish

Bitcoin does what it says on the tin.  
It does it reliably, and without fail continuously for more than half a decade.

Maybe we will get to a point where it can do more, but this must not be at risk of failing to do what it does.
Many risks are insidious, and not well understood until too late so it is incumbent upon us now to at least address all those that are understood.

[majamalu]

Now we know you subscribe to the surreal Red Queen Interpretation, whereby in doing nothing we are accused of "meddling."

You are in fact meddling with Satoshi's plan. You know, those uncomfortable quotes. 

[majamalu]

Peter R's ideas are an excellent basis for an altcoin.  They will have to be put into a BIP and accepted by the economic majority before any tide starts turning.

How do you define "economic majority"?

When people stop arguing about it. Trying to push a hard fork when people can't agree on what is to be done is insane. Arguably when you do that you are creating an altcoin, although hopefully you are at least careful with how you do it so you don't break both coins.

That's not a definition, that's the usual FUD.

[majamalu]

The concept of Economic majority does not easily lend itself to an intuitive understanding, perhaps because prior to the existence of Bitcoin the free software world had never faced the challenge to bring out a monetary system, and because economic science had never before dealt with a monetary system entirely based on software.

I'll give it a shot: Economic majority is the one composed of long term investors that collectively control most of the bitcoins and therefore share an interest to preserve, and if possible increase, the utility - and thus economic value - of Bitcoin.

If, for example, you are the owner of 0.001 bitcoin and you only accept and use the software version which keeps the 21 million cap to the amount of bitcoins that will exist, you are part of the economic majority.

On the other hand, if you own 1,000,000 bitcoins and, for some reason - maybe a stroke - you are in favor of turning Bitcoin into a monetary system with an ever growing inflation of the money supply, you are part of the economic minority, and no one will accept your coins if you insist on using only your version of the software.

This doesn't mean that the economic majority is always right; it just mean that if you go against it you are the one that is creating an altcoin.

[iCEBREAKER]

Now we know you subscribe to the surreal Red Queen Interpretation, whereby in doing nothing we are accused of "meddling."

You are in fact meddling with Satoshi's plan. You know, those uncomfortable quotes. 

Oh dear, it's "Off with their heads!" time again.  I'm sorry, Your Highness.

I should have realized there is no trade off between Layer 1 scaling and decentralization.  How silly of me!

Oops, I also should have realized adoption and efficiency (not resiliency) are the paramount goals of decentralized non-state sanctioned currency.

[Cconvert2G36]

Increase to 2-4MB, not enough for pedal to the metal scaling fans, too much for accelerated fee market fans. Perfect for real world testing of a variable that we haven't tested yet.

[uvwvj]

My extreme statist solution - which I see ultimately increasing scale across multiple systems

Current 10 minute blocks with 25BTC being mined

At next halving (2016)

1 minute blocks with 1.25 BTC being mined
Each block with 1MB limit
add Blockstream sidechain tech into code

**Equates to 10 minute blocks at 10MB with side chain capabilities mining 12.5 BTC**

This solution will allow on block transfers that will allow blocks to happen faster in real world transfers, with the reciever deciding how many confirmed blocks he feels safe with in a small amount of time, along with allowing much more transactions. - True P2P

By adding blockstream sidechain code they can integrate sidechains and ledgers as needed to assist in blockchain growth - even if this means introducing pegged coins to Bitcoin

This still allows a company like Coinbase to offer off the block transfers between user and a company like Overstock with the "Bitlicense" protecting your Coinbase held Bitcoins with "FDIC Bitlicense"

[klee]

Thread title:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1064374.msg12057609#msg12057609

[Peter R]

so if I understand correctly Peter's "landmark paper" rise to the top was.."short like leprechaun".

http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/009916.html

a valiant effort I guess. getting some more peer-review probably would've been of better judgment?

ps. I'm not against you "crowd-sourcing" your grammar but I thought the whole exercise on reddit made your thread unreadable.

I don't see how proportion of hash rate has anything to do with orphan rate.  Each broadcast block has the same chance of being orphaned as the next broadcast block, regardless of your proportion of hashrate, with network speed and connectivity being the only major variable.  He needs to show some peterr-style analysis.

It is simple. You never orphan your own blocks. So if you have hypothetically a 99% hash rate you will have an orphan rate that is <1% regardless of propagation time. Someone else on the same network may have an orphan rate that is much greater than 1% given high propagation time.

The numbers work out differently with a more realistic hash rate share (say 15%) but the principle is the same. The higher your share the more of an advantage you get from the prevailing orphan rate being high.

Ok that makes sense

I think the "you" in the phrase "you never orphan your own blocks" needs to be thought about more carefully, but the point is valid that a block's propagation impedance [my (gamma x C)^-1 in the paper] is much less when the information is communicated across a miner's own hardware network compared to when the information is communicated to other miners. The paper spoke to this [albeit less than I should have in hindsight and I didn't explicitly talk about intra-miner communication] in the Conclusion and in End Note 13.  

I was actually working on an "Appendix B" to formalize my definition for tau(Q) by considering these details more rigorously, but the math become too complex and so I felt that such an analysis deserved a follow-up paper instead.  

In any case, my suspicion is:

(1) As long as information regarding the transactions in a solved block needs to be communicated between miners (and even within a miner's own network), the Shannon-Hartley limit will apply, orphaning cost will be non-zero, and the fee market will remain healthy.

(2) We will be able to show that any attempts to create a "mining cartel" that prevents outsiders from accessing the same "fast relay networks" as the cartel members will fail, as individual members will improve their profitability by "cheating" by providing access to non-members. [A point Erdogan mentioned earlier in this thread.]

(3) The results of the paper will hold "as long as honest nodes collectively control more CPU power than any cooperating group of attacker nodes."  [Satoshi White Paper]

[Peter R]

Thank you to everyone for your acknowledgement of my paper--it is satisfying to see something you've worked hard on begin to make an impact in the discussion!  Like I said earlier, it was really just a formalization of some of the ideas we've been discussing here over the past months.    

I'm very happy with how the paper was received.  Between public and private comments (and Peter Todd calling it pseudo science) several aspects of the paper were challenged, and now I'm further convinced that the model and results are both useful and valid.  I think the most accurate criticism of the paper was that I should have spent more effort discussing the inter/intra communication issues (the "you don't orphan you're own block" point).¹ Hopefully, I'll have time to work on this in the fall.  

I exchanged emails with Greg Maxwell over several aspects of the paper that he questioned.  One point he did make, that I admit is valid but do not personally see as an issue, is that the most profitable "configuration" according to the results from the paper is a single "super pool" made up of ALL the network's hashing power (which would be centralizing).  This would minimize the propagation impedance.  While I agree that this is true, it seems like just another way of looking at the 51% problem.  We already know that if one entity controls a huge amount of hash power they can do nasty things and gain certain advantages.  But it would be nice to find a way to explain why this shouldn't happen with more rigour than the "game theory" or "anti-fragile" fallback positions…


The experiment with the $10 bounties produced a mixed result.  On the one hand, I think it got people who normally wouldn't read such a paper more involved in the discussion, but on the other hand (like brg444 pointed out) it may have made the thread less readable.  I ended up paying out $90 to catch several small errors.  The error I was most pleased to catch was Noosterdam's "innumerate" versus "enumerate."  I think I've been using these words interchangeably my entire life but they actually mean very different things!


¹Note that the math is valid nonetheless, as this just affects the propagation delay which was accounted for in the model.  

[iCEBREAKER]

a single "super pool" made up of ALL the network's hashing power

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/P2Pool

The ideal was P2Pool mining by ~every wallet user.  The reality fell short of that.  Orphan blocks are killing p2pool, and bloated Gavinblocks may be the last nail in its coffin.

[Natalia_AnatolioPAMM]

Thread title:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1064374.msg12057609#msg12057609

threatening  indeed

[iCEBREAKER]

My extreme statist solution - which I see ultimately increasing scale across multiple systems

At next halving (2016)

1 minute blocks with 1.25 BTC being mined
Each block with 1MB limit
add Blockstream sidechain tech into code

**Equates to 10 minute blocks at 10MB with side chain capabilities mining 12.5 BTC**

That's how you fail, not how you scale.  Let's try going in the other direction:


BIP 1337 (Keep Bitcoin Elite)

Shorter blocks waste computational resources, so PoW security decreases as block frequency increases.  Because variances multiply attacking forces, time is an ally of Nakamoto Consensus and an enemy of its adversaries.

As Bitcoin becomes more a (IE The Ultimate) settlement layer, block timing should be adjusted contingent on block size modifications.  Given the trade-offs involved, increases of max_blocksize will be married to proportional changes of block time/reward.  For example, if we double max_blocksize to 2MB, we necessarily double block time/reward as well.

The more important Bitcoin becomes, the more important is equal access to full node functionality.  If Bitcoin's Mother Of All Blockchains is the rule the world, everyone should be able to verify it.  Any other outcome violates Chaum's maxim regarding the danger of poorly designed e-cash and tyranny.

The point is to regulate the ambitions of the Gavinistas and their ambivalence about maintaining a diverse/diffuse/defensible/resilient network.  In business, this is called a poison pill ("A strategy used by corporations to discourage hostile takeovers").   

[lebing]

I exchanged emails with Greg Maxwell over several aspects of the paper that he questioned.  One point he did make, that I admit is valid but do not personally see as an issue, is that the most profitable "configuration" according to the results from the paper is a single "super pool" made up of ALL the network's hashing power (which would be centralizing).  This would minimize the propagation impedance.  While I agree that this is true, it seems like just another way of looking at the 51% problem.  We already know that if one entity controls a huge amount of hash power they can do nasty things and gain certain advantages.  But it would be nice to find a way to explain why this shouldn't happen with more rigour than the "game theory" or "anti-fragile" fallback positions…

Fantastic work Peter. You have done bitcoin a great service to Bitcoin with your work.

a request: I would be interested in seeing the exchanges you had with Greg (assuming he agrees to make them public as well) if you don't mind.

re: Peter Todd, banning him might be enough reason to move to XT alone. His trolling to coding ratio is too damn high.

[sgbett]

I've tried really hard to try and see the opposing POV but I come up short every time, and I think that's because I can't understand the philosophy behind making BTC some elitist tool when it seemed right from the outset that it was anything but.

If that makes me part of the "free-shit" army, then so be it. I'm not (yet) so morally bankrupt that I think that my well being can only come at the expense of others. That's what cripplecoin sounds like, thats why I don't want any part of it.

You aren't trying that hard if you can't read and understand this fairly simple, single sentence summation of the opposing POV:

The true value that Bitcoin brings to the table is not "everyone gets to write into the holy ledger", it is instead "everyone gets to benefit from sane and non-inflationary financial instutions whose sanity and honesty are ensured by the holy blockchain".

Where in Davout's statement is the "moral bankruptcy?"  All I see is economic literacy and an understanding of the technical limitations of scaling Bitcoin I/O.

Where in Davout's statement is the desire for well being coming "at the expense of others?"  All I see is a workable plan for radical inclusion ("everyone gets to benefit"), albeit not in the manner preferred by those with atrociously paltry understandings of Bitcoin and economics.

Who are these financial institutions, and why do assume they are necessary. You seem to ignore the fact that bitcoin is money. Its a medium of exchange, a unit of account, a store of value. The blockchain facilitates these things. Your financial institutions are an unnecessary complexity, the blockchain doesn't need financial institutions it *is* the institution.

Your summation quite clearly reveals some other agenda. You know that increasing the block size undermines it, so you are fighting tooth and nail to try and prevent it.

How nice of you to ignore my two questions (Where in Davout's statement is the "moral bankruptcy?" and Where in Davout's statement is the desire for well being coming "at the expense of others?"), thereby backing off your previous unkind assertions about our motivations.

Oh wait, you are still speculating about motives.  Ok fine, let's 'go there' again....   

What is the mysterious "some other agenda" you are talking about?  If my summation "quite clearly reveals" it, the specifics shouldn't be very hard for you to elaborate.   

The exact names of the financial institutions aren't important, only that their "sanity and honesty are ensured by the holy blockchain."

You are of course aware the radical transparency and real-time accounting/auditing enabled by blockchains in general is all the rage.  So why does it fall upon me to spoon feed you common knowledge as if you are five years old?

You don't ask questions because you want answers. Your questions are devices used to restate another persons argument in such a way that you can then make arguments against them which cannot be refuted. By doing this you are attempting to create the illusion that your arguments actually refute what the other person said (as opposed to your mischaracterisation of what they said).

As this is a generalisation, your immediate reaction is to then go away and discover a single incident where this did not happen, and then argue that because this didn't happen one time, it never happens.

You use the same pattern here, without a question.

The exact names of the financial institutions aren't important, only that their "sanity and honesty are ensured by the holy blockchain."

[The exact names of the financial institutions aren't important] - Yes exact names are not important.

[only that their "sanity and honesty are ensured by the holy blockchain."] - you attempt to establish the credibility of this statement by contrasting it against the absurd.

This is a recurring theme, and it is the whole basis of your argument. You craft entire walls of text specifically designed to give the impression that you are of superior intellect, and that the other person is a buffoon. You think that by doing this you increase the legitimacy of your position. You do not.

This is the subtlety that you are missing: "Let each thing stand on its own merit"

This applies equally to LN / Sidechains as it does to your own self.

Sometimes one is just plain wrong. Acknowledging this is more important than being right.

For example, your handwaving over full blocks. I likened them to Rome Burning for a very good reason. Full blocks and a constantly increasing mempool cause significant problems. Maybe you should look into it, its the thing that most concerned me and I think is the biggest motivation for making sure that full blocks don't happen.

Peter R's paper, demonstrating the block size is self limiting, puts a fork in it! (so to speak)

It isn't me that is trolling ICE. I post what I believe to be true, based on what I have read, and learned and understood. I think there is a difference between us though: I know I might be wrong, and if I am, I'll be fine about it.

[iCEBREAKER]

What is the mysterious "some other agenda" you are talking about?  If my summation "quite clearly reveals" it, the specifics shouldn't be very hard for you to elaborate.  

The exact names of the financial institutions aren't important, only that their "sanity and honesty are ensured by the holy blockchain."

You are of course aware the radical transparency and real-time accounting/auditing enabled by blockchains in general is all the rage.  So why does it fall upon me to spoon feed you common knowledge as if you are five years old?

You don't ask questions because you want answers. Your questions are devices used to restate another persons argument in such a way that you can then make arguments against them which cannot be refuted. By doing this you are attempting to create the illusion that your arguments actually refute what the other person said (as opposed to your mischaracterisation of what they said).

As this is a generalisation, your immediate reaction is to then go away and discover a single incident where this did not happen, and then argue that because this didn't happen one time, it never happens.

You use the same pattern here, without a question.

The exact names of the financial institutions aren't important, only that their "sanity and honesty are ensured by the holy blockchain."

[The exact names of the financial institutions aren't important] - Yes exact names are not important.

[only that their "sanity and honesty are ensured by the holy blockchain."] - you attempt to establish the credibility of this statement by contrasting it against the absurd.

This is a recurring theme, and it is the whole basis of your argument. You craft entire walls of text specifically designed to give the impression that you are of superior intellect, and that the other person is a buffoon. You think that by doing this you increase the legitimacy of your position. You do not.

This is the subtlety that you are missing: "Let each thing stand on its own merit"

This applies equally to LN / Sidechains as it does to your own self.

Sometimes one is just plain wrong. Acknowledging this is more important than being right.

For example, your handwaving over full blocks. I likened them to Rome Burning for a very good reason. Full blocks and a constantly increasing mempool cause significant problems. Maybe you should look into it, its the thing that most concerned me and I think is the biggest motivation for making sure that full blocks don't happen.

Peter R's paper, demonstrating the block size is self limiting, puts a fork in it! (so to speak)

It isn't me that is trolling ICE. I post what I believe to be true, based on what I have read, and learned and understood. I think there is a difference between us though: I know I might be wrong, and if I am, I'll be fine about it.

My God, you complain more than an old woman.    Of course your victimological dissembling allows you to once again sidestep unanswered questions about your misconstrual of davout's statement.  How could you possibly translate "everyone gets to benefit" into "moral bankruptcy" and well being coming "at the expense of others?"  If you could clear up that mystery, it would be great.

Your exaggerated likening of full blocks to Rome Burning^® is hysterical hyperbole.  Even Gavin says full blocks won't cause the sky to fall.

The "significant problems" you mention have even more significant solutions, in the form of better node/pool/mine configurations, smarter wallet software, RBF, fee market incubation, and pressure on SC/LN development.  That's how antifragile works, and will continue to work as Layer 2 is built out.

Another amusing effect of antifragile: nobody cares about a few Quixotic Gavinistas tilting at the block size.

[solex]

Thank you to everyone for your acknowledgement of my paper--it is satisfying to see something you've worked hard on begin to make an impact in the discussion!  Like I said earlier, it was really just a formalization of some of the ideas we've been discussing here over the past months.    

I'm very happy with how the paper was received.  Between public and private comments (and Peter Todd calling it pseudo science) several aspects of the paper were challenged, and now I'm further convinced that the model and results are both useful and valid.  I think the most accurate criticism of the paper was that I should have spent more effort discussing the inter/intra communication issues (the "you don't orphan you're own block" point).¹ Hopefully, I'll have time to work on this in the fall.  

I exchanged emails with Greg Maxwell over several aspects of the paper that he questioned.  One point he did make, that I admit is valid but do not personally see as an issue, is that the most profitable "configuration" according to the results from the paper is a single "super pool" made up of ALL the network's hashing power (which would be centralizing).  This would minimize the propagation impedance.  While I agree that this is true, it seems like just another way of looking at the 51% problem.  We already know that if one entity controls a huge amount of hash power they can do nasty things and gain certain advantages.  But it would be nice to find a way to explain why this shouldn't happen with more rigour than the "game theory" or "anti-fragile" fallback positions…


The experiment with the $10 bounties produced a mixed result.  On the one hand, I think it got people who normally wouldn't read such a paper more involved in the discussion, but on the other hand (like brg444 pointed out) it may have made the thread less readable.  I ended up paying out $90 to catch several small errors.  The error I was most pleased to catch was Noosterdam's "innumerate" versus "enumerate."  I think I've been using these words interchangeably my entire life but they actually mean very different things!


¹Note that the math is valid nonetheless, as this just affects the propagation delay which was accounted for in the model.  

Well done on your paper Peter, and timed for when most needed too.

I was thinking about that commonly mentioned point "not orphaning own blocks.." and I don't think that it warrants real concern, or wasting time figuring out transmission overhead within a single miner.
The empirical evidence is that mining is continuing to decentralize after an era of centralization. We know why the centralization occurred: invention of pool mining and ASIC development. Neither being block size related.
We also saw 3 pools reach 50% (Deepbit, Guild and Ghash) and each time the incentive of block rewards kept them honest.

I notice on the dev thread today that some people still consider $5 fees per tx feasible. Users will just avoid Bitcoin in that situation, and the total fees per block will remain small. Miners need more ecosystem growth to succeed, especially after the next halving. You have gone further than most to prove the way forward.

[sgbett]

What is the mysterious "some other agenda" you are talking about?  If my summation "quite clearly reveals" it, the specifics shouldn't be very hard for you to elaborate.  

The exact names of the financial institutions aren't important, only that their "sanity and honesty are ensured by the holy blockchain."

You are of course aware the radical transparency and real-time accounting/auditing enabled by blockchains in general is all the rage.  So why does it fall upon me to spoon feed you common knowledge as if you are five years old?

You don't ask questions because you want answers. Your questions are devices used to restate another persons argument in such a way that you can then make arguments against them which cannot be refuted. By doing this you are attempting to create the illusion that your arguments actually refute what the other person said (as opposed to your mischaracterisation of what they said).

As this is a generalisation, your immediate reaction is to then go away and discover a single incident where this did not happen, and then argue that because this didn't happen one time, it never happens.

You use the same pattern here, without a question.

The exact names of the financial institutions aren't important, only that their "sanity and honesty are ensured by the holy blockchain."

[The exact names of the financial institutions aren't important] - Yes exact names are not important.

[only that their "sanity and honesty are ensured by the holy blockchain."] - you attempt to establish the credibility of this statement by contrasting it against the absurd.

This is a recurring theme, and it is the whole basis of your argument. You craft entire walls of text specifically designed to give the impression that you are of superior intellect, and that the other person is a buffoon. You think that by doing this you increase the legitimacy of your position. You do not.

This is the subtlety that you are missing: "Let each thing stand on its own merit"

This applies equally to LN / Sidechains as it does to your own self.

Sometimes one is just plain wrong. Acknowledging this is more important than being right.

For example, your handwaving over full blocks. I likened them to Rome Burning for a very good reason. Full blocks and a constantly increasing mempool cause significant problems. Maybe you should look into it, its the thing that most concerned me and I think is the biggest motivation for making sure that full blocks don't happen.

Peter R's paper, demonstrating the block size is self limiting, puts a fork in it! (so to speak)

It isn't me that is trolling ICE. I post what I believe to be true, based on what I have read, and learned and understood. I think there is a difference between us though: I know I might be wrong, and if I am, I'll be fine about it.

My God, you complain more than an old woman.    Of course your victimological dissembling allows you to once again sidestep unanswered questions about your misconstrual of davout's statement.  How could you possibly translate "everyone gets to benefit" into "moral bankruptcy" and well being coming "at the expense of others?"  If you could clear up that mystery, it would be great.

Your exaggerated likening of full blocks to Rome Burning^® is hysterical hyperbole.  Even Gavin says full blocks won't cause the sky to fall.

The "significant problems" you mention have even more significant solutions, in the form of better node/pool/mine configurations, smarter wallet software, RBF, fee market incubation, and pressure on SC/LN development.  That's how antifragile works, and will continue to work as Layer 2 is built out.

Another amusing effect of antifragile: nobody cares about a few Quixotic Gavinistas tilting at the block size.

How anything can be a mystery to someone of such overwhelming intelligence is the real puzzle here. Sidestepped again, oh woe is me. It's not my job to explain your own view to you. Only you can bring yourself to your senses, you've proved countless times that you won't hear reason from anyone else.

The thrust of the Rome Burning metaphor is not the fact that Rome burns, but that you are Nero meddling fiddling whilst it happens. You missed that point though, so eager to to try and deny that there is any risk https://medium.com/@octskyward/crash-landing-f5cc19908e32

...and gavin said what now?

There is a very good blog post by David Hudson at hashingit.com analyzing what will happen on the network as we approach 100% full blocks. Please visit that link for full details, but basically he points out there is a mismatch between when transactions are created and when blocks are found– and that mismatch means very bad things start to happen on the network as the one megabyte limit is reached.

[macsga]

Very interesting post from Axel Merk... This is Gentlemen?  :

When volatility is low and asset prices rise, buyers are attracted that don’t fully appreciate the underlying risks. Should volatility rise, these investors might flee their investments, saying they didn’t sign up for this. Differently said, central banks have fostered complacency, but fear may well be coming back. At least as importantly, these assets are still risky, but have not suddenly become safe. When investors realize this, they might react violently. This can be seen most easily when darlings on Wall Street miss earnings, but might also happen when central banks change course or any currently unforeseen event changes risk appetite in the market.

Relevant with regards to my concern over a more severe correction is that it is complacency that drove the tech bubble to ever new highs in the nineties; and it was similar complacency that drove housing into the stratosphere ahead of 2008. Bubbles are created when investors have the illusion that there’s no or little risk with the strategy they are pursuing, bidding up asset prices.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-08-04/axel-merk-comes-out-bear