Bitcoin Forum
December 05, 2016, 12:35:03 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [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 ... 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 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1804367 times)
Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714



View Profile
August 11, 2015, 04:15:06 PM
 #30141

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.
1480898103
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480898103

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480898103
Reply with quote  #2

1480898103
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1480898103
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480898103

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480898103
Reply with quote  #2

1480898103
Report to moderator
1480898103
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480898103

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480898103
Reply with quote  #2

1480898103
Report to moderator
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
August 11, 2015, 04:22:21 PM
 #30142

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?

"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
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
August 11, 2015, 04:23:33 PM
 #30143

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.


"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
thezerg
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


View Profile
August 11, 2015, 04:27:03 PM
 #30144

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.

"interest of users and miner's incentives could diverge"... this is a very odd way of describing the situation because these interests are of course divergent.  

The interest of a seller is always to sell at the highest price, and the buyer to buy at the lowest.  It is this tension that makes price discovery work.


This chart brings up a very good point.  Like you point out, in such a scenario, the miner can only earn a profit if he can include a sufficient number of fee-paying TXs in his block.  But what happens if the miner before him cleaned out the mempool?  It seems the rational miner will stop hashing1 entirely until enough new transactions have built up to push his block into the "profitable" zone in your graph (the zone where the supply curve is below the demand curve).  

Do you see this as a problem?  I see this as the network working at its maximum efficiency... note that every miner will have a slightly different cost so hashing power will turn off at different times.  And if running intermittent hashing power causes blocks to come less often than once per 10minutes, the difficulty will be reduced.  The reduction in difficulty will allow blocks to be found with less hash power so your hardware will be more likely to find the block.  This means miners will power up their hardware with fewer transactions in the mempool.

So the system self-adjusts.

The awesome part of it is that there is NO minimum fee.  Difficulty will always adjust to allow the minimum fee to be whatever people are willing to pay (presumably to just below competitive money transmission systems).
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 11, 2015, 04:33:12 PM
 #30145

oh my, Cripplecoiners in Big Trouble:

https://twitter.com/Datavetaren/status/631080568487342080
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 938



View Profile
August 11, 2015, 04:34:20 PM
 #30146

This chart brings up a very good point.  Like you point out, in such a scenario, the miner can only earn a profit if he can include a sufficient number of fee-paying TXs in his block.  But what happens if the miner before him cleaned out the mempool?  It seems the rational miner will stop hashing1 entirely until enough new transactions have built up to push his block into the "profitable" zone in your graph (the zone where the supply curve is below the demand curve).  

Do you see this as a problem?  I see this as the network working at its maximum efficiency... note that every miner will have a slightly different cost so hashing power will turn off at different times.  And if running intermittent hashing power causes blocks to come less often than once per 10minutes, the difficulty will be reduced.  The reduction in difficulty will allow blocks to be found with less hash power so your hardware will be more likely to find the block.  This means miners will power up their hardware with fewer transactions in the mempool.

So the system self-adjusts.

The awesome part of it is that there is NO minimum fee.  Difficulty will always adjust to allow the minimum fee to be whatever people are willing to pay (presumably to just below competitive money transmission systems).

No, I see this as a positive.  I agree with everything you wrote above.  

However, one thing I'd like to reconcile is the fact that Eq. (11)



suggests the cost to spam the blockchain falls to zero as R->0.  I was wondering if my model "breaks" when the block reward becomes small because it is not considering that rational miners would stop and start hashing depending on the fees available from mempool.  

Run Bitcoin Unlimited (www.bitcoinunlimited.info)
Wexlike
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 746



View Profile
August 11, 2015, 04:38:07 PM
 #30147


Don't forget https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gkp91/blocksize_debate_coinbase_bitpay_chaincom/

Bigger blocks, here we come !
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 11, 2015, 04:38:10 PM
 #30148

hey iCEBLOW.  blow this:

klee
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1316



View Profile
August 11, 2015, 04:38:50 PM
 #30149

Seems I am on ignore on everyone here  Tongue

BTC: 1K9atu5zgz7izCMAynk5adBJ8Qn2YgS6nT
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 938



View Profile
August 11, 2015, 04:40:00 PM
 #30150


This is very interesting.  Here's the corresponding Reddit thread:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3glfo1/44_of_bitcoin_mining_hash_power_is_currently/

Let's say you are an exchange or a payment company and you are impartial to big versus small blocks.  What is the rational thing to do?  Well, the rational thing is to run XT (or Core with an 8 MB patch) because then you will follow the longest proof-of-work chain no matter what happens!  If you stick with Core "as is," then you may fork yourself from the economic majority.  

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

Activity: 938



View Profile
August 11, 2015, 04:45:56 PM
 #30151


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/ .

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

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 11, 2015, 04:51:25 PM
 #30152

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.
Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714



View Profile
August 11, 2015, 04:52:54 PM
 #30153

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
 #30154


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: 746



View Profile
August 11, 2015, 04:55:18 PM
 #30155


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: 714



View Profile
August 11, 2015, 04:55:50 PM
 #30156

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: 714



View Profile
August 11, 2015, 04:59:51 PM
 #30157

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
 #30158


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: 1330



View Profile
August 11, 2015, 05:05:41 PM
 #30159


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: 938



View Profile
August 11, 2015, 05:13:56 PM
 #30160


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)
Pages: « 1 ... 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 ... 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!