Bitcoin Forum
December 16, 2017, 11:56:03 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [Torrent].
 
   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 ... 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 1520 1521 1522 1523 1524 1525 1526 1527 1528 1529 1530 1531 1532 1533 1534 1535 1536 1537 1538 1539 1540 1541 1542 1543 1544 1545 1546 1547 1548 1549 1550 1551 1552 1553 1554 1555 1556 1557 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 2022643 times)
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 11, 2015, 04:51:25 PM
 #30121

https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoin_uncensored/comments/3gl8oc/mike_hearns_plans_for_bitcoin_xt_this_upcoming/

i will be upgrading my current XT nodes to the master 0.11 when it comes out.  that will be the one WITH bigger blocks.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1513425363
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513425363

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513425363
Reply with quote  #2

1513425363
Report to moderator
1513425363
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513425363

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513425363
Reply with quote  #2

1513425363
Report to moderator
Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 840


View Profile
August 11, 2015, 04:52:54 PM
 #30122

Using logic, I can see two possible reason for being a block minimalist developer.

1)  Since "Uh oh, here it is we who decide the size of the blocks", because having power is good. Since there is no consensus within the self appointed dominator group, we have to wait until the royals can come to agreement.

2) They want to suffocate bitcoin, permanently if possible, to get a head start on their endevour into competing systems.

I'm leaning more and more towards 2, judging by the percentage of Blockstream supremacists and monero pimps between block minimalists.

I don't follow your logic.
Larger blocks would help Blockstream be effective.
I doubt there are many people (if any) in either Blockstream or Monero that are seeking for Bitcoin to not succeed.

It is disingenuous to assume a wicked motive in this debate just because you disagree on the risk assessment.
Those that disagree with you could do the same and say that you want big blocks ahead of other developments because you want Bitcoin to fail and it would also not make any sense or be useful to getting the right answer.

I think what he is saying is that he doesn't think the [2] people want bitcoin to fail, they want to leverage the artificial fee market to push the adoption of their preferred alternative technology.


Right, hold back, not kill entirely, because what they have is only dreams and vaporware.


https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gldfn/alpha_thundernetwork_a_lightning_network/

Vaporware you say?

So I was 2 hours out of sync with reality.

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 11, 2015, 04:53:19 PM
 #30123


Weird.  I'm no longer seeing that post on Reddit.  Was it just censored?  I see it if I follow the link given above, but I can't find any longer of I go to https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/ .

yes it was censored.  this is why i've switched to: 

https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoin_uncensored/
Wexlike
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 975


View Profile
August 11, 2015, 04:55:18 PM
 #30124


Weird.  I'm no longer seeing that post on Reddit.  Was it just censored?  I see it if I follow the link given above, but I can't find any longer of I go to https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/ .

It disappeared for me too ! Is Theymos really banning something this substantial ?
Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 840


View Profile
August 11, 2015, 04:55:50 PM
 #30125

Quote
Anyways, to really understand what happens when R->0 I think we need to make a new model that takes into account what we just learned from your chart above (that miners won't necessarily be hashing all the time).

That seems to be an interesting point illustrating how the best interest of users and miners incentives could diverge.
For users, an empty block is always better than no block because it adds work to the chain and increases the security of the previous transactions.

1 If this turns out to be frequent, the difficulty would adjust.

2 If there are no transactions, a block is really not needed.

Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 840


View Profile
August 11, 2015, 04:59:51 PM
 #30126

Using logic, I can see two possible reason for being a block minimalist developer.

1)  Since "Uh oh, here it is we who decide the size of the blocks", because having power is good. Since there is no consensus within the self appointed dominator group, we have to wait until the royals can come to agreement.

2) They want to suffocate bitcoin, permanently if possible, to get a head start on their endevour into competing systems.

I'm leaning more and more towards 2, judging by the percentage of Blockstream supremacists and monero pimps between block minimalists.

I don't follow your logic.
Larger blocks would help Blockstream be effective.
I doubt there are many people (if any) in either Blockstream or Monero that are seeking for Bitcoin to not succeed.

It is disingenuous to assume a wicked motive in this debate just because you disagree on the risk assessment.
Those that disagree with you could do the same and say that you want big blocks ahead of other developments because you want Bitcoin to fail and it would also not make any sense or be useful to getting the right answer.

I used "logic" to sound arrogant, it is a bad habit. Anyway, there is absolutely no higher risk with 1.1 MB than 1.0 MB. I don't want to repeat all the other arguments either way.

There is also absolutely no point to move from 1.0 MB to 1.1 MB.


I think it would be a good move. Revitalise trust from those with only toes in, then moon...

 Shocked

Hard fork the network and risk catastrophic consensus failure to "revitalise trust" is a good move!?

You are out of your mind.



Look if you are that risk averse - how do you dare touch the Internet. There are child molesters on the net, didn't you know?

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 11, 2015, 05:00:49 PM
 #30127


Weird.  I'm no longer seeing that post on Reddit.  Was it just censored?  I see it if I follow the link given above, but I can't find any longer of I go to https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/ .

It disappeared for me too ! Is Theymos really banning something this substantial ?

look, you might as well get it straight right now; he does censor.  for those who know me, i've been complaining about he and his mod plebes censoring posts for years now here on BCT.  i'm not surprised he's doing it now on Reddit.  my best guess is theymos is still in his 20's; when i first communicated with him back in 2011 he was still in school for CS.  don't expect maturity from him as has been demonstrated on a number of other issues.

i half expect this thread to be shut down any moment.
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372



View Profile
August 11, 2015, 05:05:41 PM
 #30128


The problem is that there is no way to tell an SPV client that the chain they are following because it has the most proof of wo
This seems to happen frequently in Bitcoin where bad behaviour by party A can negatively effect party B, and so everybody focuses exclusively on preventing party A's bad behaviour instead of making the system more robust by removing party A's ability to negatively impact party B to solve all current and future problems.

This is a great point it's the core idea behind my diminishing faith in the majority of popular developers, they are building (developing) on top of systematic mistakes or fundamental deviations from the construct of incentives the code is needed to govern.

The problem is they are seeing their past work as progress and future fixes as necessary to overcome satoshis mistakes.

From my point of view satoshi made lots of mistakes, but where he succeeded was in aligning incentives to make a robust money, this is under threat as those incentives are sometimes considered critiqued as inefficiency.

Case in point (SPV) mining - originally employed by Ghash to improve their orphan rate this bug should have been removed to diminish their advantage, where as the developers seemed to sanction it's deployment throughout the network to balance competition.

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
August 11, 2015, 05:13:56 PM
 #30129


Weird.  I'm no longer seeing that post on Reddit.  Was it just censored?  I see it if I follow the link given above, but I can't find any longer of I go to https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/ .

It disappeared for me too ! Is Theymos really banning something this substantial ?

look, you might as well get it straight right now; he does censor.  for those who know me, i've been complaining about he and his mod plebes censoring posts for years now here on BCT.  i'm not surprised he's doing it now on Reddit.  my best guess is theymos is still in his 20's; when i first communicated with him back in 2011 he was still in school for CS.  don't expect maturity from him as has been demonstrated on a number of other issues.

i half expect this thread to be shut down any moment.

It's back now (at least for me)!

Run Bitcoin Unlimited (www.bitcoinunlimited.info)
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372



View Profile
August 11, 2015, 05:16:49 PM
 #30130

[...]
So to answer your question, my view is that IBLT would not affect the health of the fee market (but it would reduce fees overall).
[...]

I think this unclear and could be misconstrued. This is the fee per transaction you are talking about, correct? As no one really knows about the total amount of fees without assumptions about the demand curve.

Hey awemany, great to see you here. Peter R I'm not fully understanding the implications of something like IBLT, I understand the benefits but intuitively I've always felt the risk of block propagation was a the minimum incentive necessary to regulate blocksize however I've been a little concerned It may not be enough.

So IBLT while innovative could be deployed in a way that diminishes the incentive to make small blocks, is my understanding correct that the free market system is not impeded by such an innovation and the incentives to mine smaller block is still preserved?


Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
rocks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1149


View Profile
August 11, 2015, 05:34:17 PM
 #30131

it may even have been good.  except that it is encouraging this non-verification scheme for tx's which as you say, may be gamed and has contributed to quite a perversion in analyzing this particular attack and was never visualized in Satoshi's original ideas.
That isn't the problem.

The problem is that there is no way to tell an SPV client that the chain they are following because it has the most proof of work is actually invalid and should be rejected.

If that capability existed, then nobody would have to care whether or not miners choose to burn their own electricity mining invalid blocks or not.

This seems to happen frequently in Bitcoin where bad behaviour by party A can negatively effect party B, and so everybody focuses exclusively on preventing party A's bad behaviour instead of making the system more robust by removing party A's ability to negatively impact party B to solve all current and future problems.

I don't think I agree with the highlighted part.

The structure of the blockchain's proof-of-work on minimal sized headers is itself the mechanism SPV clients use to determine if a chain is valid. Yes they do not verify the chain's contents themselves. Instead they rely on the fact that producing a false longest chain is prohibitly expensive and thus very unlikely.

To effectively pull off a longest but invalid chain attack requires an attacker to spend more mining effort than the rest of the ecosystem, in order to produce a false chain that will never be acknowledged by the p2p network and can only be used to temporarily trick SPV users.

In short, proof of work on headers is itself a form of validation.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 11, 2015, 05:42:11 PM
 #30132

Quote
i'm not saying that the relay network has been bad for Bitcoin; it may even have been good.  except that it is encouraging this non-verification scheme
I'm not sure to understand your logic here.

by encouraging non verification of blocks simply to increase the speed of propagation of blocks thru the network increases the risk of forking, imo.

as you have said, that's why we have the p2p network to begin with as the standard.
rocks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1149


View Profile
August 11, 2015, 05:46:09 PM
 #30133

Quote
Anyways, to really understand what happens when R->0 I think we need to make a new model that takes into account what we just learned from your chart above (that miners won't necessarily be hashing all the time).

That seems to be an interesting point illustrating how the best interest of users and miners incentives could diverge.
For users, an empty block is always better than no block because it adds work to the chain and increases the security of the previous transactions.

Miners being financially motivated to shutdown for a period of time may not be an issue though.

Let's say that coinbase rewards are zero and miners live on fees only, and given a difficulty level it does not make sense to spend electricity until X number of fees/transactions are published.

In such a situation the difficulty will adjust/decrease until 10 minute blocks are restored. This might mean that after a block is found miners turn off for 5 minutes and only turn on after 5 minutes of fees are sent, but the difficulty will have adjusted so that miners are likely to find the next block 5 minutes after turning on. Yes this would also mean that if all miners keep running we would have 5 minute blocks, but they wouldn't be. And if they did then difficulty would adjust back up.

Since these issues develop slowly, I believe we would see that difficulty will continue to adjust to maintain 10 min blocks regardless of the financial incentives of the time.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 11, 2015, 05:51:08 PM
 #30134

Quote
Anyways, to really understand what happens when R->0 I think we need to make a new model that takes into account what we just learned from your chart above (that miners won't necessarily be hashing all the time).

That seems to be an interesting point illustrating how the best interest of users and miners incentives could diverge.
For users, an empty block is always better than no block because it adds work to the chain and increases the security of the previous transactions.

Miners being financially motivated to shutdown for a period of time may not be an issue though.

Let's say that cowouldn'tewards are zero and miners live on fees only, and given a difficulty level it does not make sense to spend electricity until X number of fees/transactions are published.

In such a situation the difficulty will adjust/decrease until 10 minute blocks are restored. This might mean that after a block is found miners turn off for 5 minutes and only turn on after 5 minutes of fees are sent, but the difficulty will have adjusted so that miners are likely to find the next block 5 minutes after turning on. Yes this would also mean that if all miners keep running we would have 5 minute blocks, but they wouldn't be. And if they did then difficulty would adjust back up.

Since these issues develop slowly, I believe we would see that difficulty will continue to adjust to maintain 10 min blocks regardless of the financial incentives of the time.

i believe all these dynamics will make mining profits similar to a utility.  just enough to keep them going but not outrageous.  as it should be with banking.
rocks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1149


View Profile
August 11, 2015, 05:54:21 PM
 #30135

Lots of services coming out in favor of larger blocks

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gkp91/blocksize_debate_coinbase_bitpay_chaincom/

As predicted here, people who have spent significant time building infrastructure on top of the blockchain do not want to be kicked off and forced to redevelop all of their infrastructure for a new mechanism.
rocks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1149


View Profile
August 11, 2015, 05:57:25 PM
 #30136

Quote
Anyways, to really understand what happens when R->0 I think we need to make a new model that takes into account what we just learned from your chart above (that miners won't necessarily be hashing all the time).

That seems to be an interesting point illustrating how the best interest of users and miners incentives could diverge.
For users, an empty block is always better than no block because it adds work to the chain and increases the security of the previous transactions.

Miners being financially motivated to shutdown for a period of time may not be an issue though.

Let's say that coinbase rewards are zero and miners live on fees only, and given a difficulty level it does not make sense to spend electricity until X number of fees/transactions are published.

In such a situation the difficulty will adjust/decrease until 10 minute blocks are restored. This might mean that after a block is found miners turn off for 5 minutes and only turn on after 5 minutes of fees are sent, but the difficulty will have adjusted so that miners are likely to find the next block 5 minutes after turning on. Yes this would also mean that if all miners keep running we would have 5 minute blocks, but they wouldn't be. And if they did then difficulty would adjust back up.

Since these issues develop slowly, I believe we would see that difficulty will continue to adjust to maintain 10 min blocks regardless of the financial incentives of the time.

i believe all these dynamics will make mining profits similar to a utility.  just enough to keep them going but not outrageous.  as it should be with banking.

The banking industry represented roughly 2-3% of GDP throughout the 1800s and into the twentieth century. Then the FED was created and the industry has continuously grown and grown reaching the massive size today. This growth will continue until the average person walks away from fiat.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 11, 2015, 06:01:56 PM
 #30137

Cripplecoiners going down fast:

[–]blockchainwallet 27 points 6 hours ago

Hey all,

It's definitely important to keep the spotlight on this topic.

Blockchain.info is publicly in favor of larger blocks. We think Gavin's approach is diligent and reasonable.

https://twitter.com/onemorepeter/status/595676380320407553

Sincerely, The Blockchain.info Team

    permalink
    save
    report
    give gold
    reply
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 11, 2015, 06:03:27 PM
 #30138

XT spreading by the moment:

brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
August 11, 2015, 06:22:34 PM
 #30139

Cripplecoiners going down fast:

[–]blockchainwallet 27 points 6 hours ago

Hey all,

It's definitely important to keep the spotlight on this topic.

Blockchain.info is publicly in favor of larger blocks. We think Gavin's approach is diligent and reasonable.

https://twitter.com/onemorepeter/status/595676380320407553

Sincerely, The Blockchain.info Team

    permalink
    save
    report
    give gold
    reply

I would be worried to get support from the fuckups at blockchain.info  Undecided

"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
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
August 11, 2015, 06:29:51 PM
 #30140

it may even have been good.  except that it is encouraging this non-verification scheme for tx's which as you say, may be gamed and has contributed to quite a perversion in analyzing this particular attack and was never visualized in Satoshi's original ideas.
That isn't the problem.

The problem is that there is no way to tell an SPV client that the chain they are following because it has the most proof of work is actually invalid and should be rejected.

If that capability existed, then nobody would have to care whether or not miners choose to burn their own electricity mining invalid blocks or not.

This seems to happen frequently in Bitcoin where bad behaviour by party A can negatively effect party B, and so everybody focuses exclusively on preventing party A's bad behaviour instead of making the system more robust by removing party A's ability to negatively impact party B to solve all current and future problems.

I don't think I agree with the highlighted part.

The structure of the blockchain's proof-of-work on minimal sized headers is itself the mechanism SPV clients use to determine if a chain is valid. Yes they do not verify the chain's contents themselves. Instead they rely on the fact that producing a false longest chain is prohibitly expensive and thus very unlikely.

To effectively pull off a longest but invalid chain attack requires an attacker to spend more mining effort than the rest of the ecosystem, in order to produce a false chain that will never be acknowledged by the p2p network and can only be used to temporarily trick SPV users.

In short, proof of work on headers is itself a form of validation.
What you are describing is not a proof. At best, its a suggestion.

If a majority of miners are building an invalid chains accidentally or intentionally, the problem will get sorted out eventually but in principle there's no upper bound on how long that process will require.

On the other hands with some relatively simple new messages and protocol requirements the time required for SPV clients to get back on the valid chain can be reduced to the time needed to propagate a message across the network regardless of the hash power supporting the invalid chain.
Pages: « 1 ... 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 1520 1521 1522 1523 1524 1525 1526 1527 1528 1529 1530 1531 1532 1533 1534 1535 1536 1537 1538 1539 1540 1541 1542 1543 1544 1545 1546 1547 1548 1549 1550 1551 1552 1553 1554 1555 1556 1557 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!