Bitcoin Forum
September 23, 2017, 11:55:46 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.0.1  [Torrent]. (New!)
 
   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 ... 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 1980398 times)
solex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078


100 satoshis -> ISO code


View Profile
August 11, 2015, 09:16:48 PM
 #30181

Maybe I'm missing something, please correct me if I'm wrong.

In the event of an empty mempool (and with a 0 btc subsidy), for a miner to obtain a profit would be necesary to wait until enough new fee paying transactions enter into the mempool, otherwise keep mining at a loss.

Isn't this the same as saying

"In order for a transaction to be added to the blockchain, a sufficient fee must be provided"

It's a matter of whether we're talking about the fee per transactions, or the total fees that a miner can claim when he builds a block.  In the case where R->0, you could post a TX with a generous fee1 but it still won't make sense for a miner to attempt to mine a block just for you.  You'd need to wait until others have broadcast similarly fee paying transactions, in order to push the block size into the "profitable" zone in Mengerian's graph:



1There would be some fee that you could pay to get your TX mined, but it would be vastly more costly than waiting for other fee-paying transactions to begin re-filling the miners' mempools.

The above discussion relates to Bitcoin in a relatively mature state, well up the S-curve. Even a negligible subsidy changes the dynamic from a zero subsidy, and the $ value of BTC might be so high that incentive to mine an empty block remains for several decades. Consider the current situation with low oil prices, many producers remain pumping at a loss while they wait for an upturn because selling at any reasonable price mitigates their fixed cost overheads.

Further, I don't think that the mempool will be emptied as standard, because it implies near 100% synchronization and there will be differences at the margins: new tx arriving and old tx expiring. One of the beauties of IBLT is that it will always allow for some out-of-band tx, which mitigates the risk of the centralised censorship inherent in "all nodes agreeing all unconfirmed tx" in advance of selection for block templates.

1506210946
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1506210946

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1506210946
Reply with quote  #2

1506210946
Report to moderator
1506210946
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1506210946

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1506210946
Reply with quote  #2

1506210946
Report to moderator
1506210946
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1506210946

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1506210946
Reply with quote  #2

1506210946
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
August 11, 2015, 09:21:59 PM
 #30182

I question the need for new messages to help SPV clients find the right path because 1) they seem exploitable to me and 2) all they need is the header chain to find the right path and headers are already short and fast to transmit. Waiting for x blocks again seems to protect them if you assume a majority of well connected miners.
This is a far weaker security model that what is achievable.

If you can point a way to exploit this technique, I'd appreciate having it pointed out:

https://gist.github.com/justusranvier/451616fa4697b5f25f60
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 11, 2015, 09:35:52 PM
 #30183

going UP:

rocks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1153


View Profile
August 11, 2015, 09:49:59 PM
 #30184

Have you guys seen this, a DAC gambling/prediction engine built on top of Ethereum

http://reason.com/blog/2015/08/11/augur-gambling-prediction-ethereum

I think this is the first example of a true DAC out in the wild that I've seen. Bitcoin still hasn't even gotten started yet.

Edit: the reason folks are solid libertarians but most of them still don't get bitcoin.
jmw74
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 236


View Profile
August 11, 2015, 09:53:41 PM
 #30185

I question the need for new messages to help SPV clients find the right path because 1) they seem exploitable to me and 2) all they need is the header chain to find the right path and headers are already short and fast to transmit. Waiting for x blocks again seems to protect them if you assume a majority of well connected miners.
This is a far weaker security model that what is achievable.

If you can point a way to exploit this technique, I'd appreciate having it pointed out:

https://gist.github.com/justusranvier/451616fa4697b5f25f60

I'm a bit shocked that no one is talking about this idea.

It would greatly increase the security (and hence the value) of SPV clients and allow far greater scaling with almost no sacrifice in security.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 11, 2015, 09:54:10 PM
 #30186

market responding well to the arrival of XT!  iCEBLOW & co is going to get blown away:

rocks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1153


View Profile
August 11, 2015, 09:57:59 PM
 #30187

I question the need for new messages to help SPV clients find the right path because 1) they seem exploitable to me and 2) all they need is the header chain to find the right path and headers are already short and fast to transmit. Waiting for x blocks again seems to protect them if you assume a majority of well connected miners.
This is a far weaker security model that what is achievable.

If you can point a way to exploit this technique, I'd appreciate having it pointed out:

https://gist.github.com/justusranvier/451616fa4697b5f25f60

I guess I'm just expressing the opinion that the current header based proof if work mechanism is working fine so far and is difficult to exploit. I'll take a look when I have time (but you're a smart guy so I'm sure the solution is strong). Its just that in this instance I'm not sure we have a problem yet, and I'm starting to take a if its not broke why fix it view largely out of fear that an unneeded change might have adverse unknown consequences (but maybe we will someday and so its very useful to have solutions ready)
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
August 11, 2015, 10:02:00 PM
 #30188

I'm a bit shocked that no one is talking about this idea.

It would greatly increase the security (and hence the value) of SPV clients and allow far greater scaling with almost no sacrifice in security.
A pessimistic explanation would be that maybe nobody actually wants solutions to any of Bitcoin's problems. They just want to have problems to point to as excuses for furthering one agenda or another.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 11, 2015, 10:03:40 PM
 #30189

2 1/2 yrs later after my newsletter post on this:

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/silicon-valley-going-wall-street-171001127.html
Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 798


View Profile
August 11, 2015, 10:12:04 PM
 #30190

It is resolved. We won. The devil lost.

thezerg
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


View Profile
August 11, 2015, 10:13:03 PM
 #30191

this sounds exactly like something i'd say:
The Blockstream Business Plan (self.Bitcoin)
submitted an hour ago * by Celean

And if this is true Blockstream is making a HUGE mistake.  I don't think many people are doing multiple txns per day, every day right now.  I don't even think many people do 1 txn per week.  I doubt that people will be willing to sequester coins into the LN for significant periods (no I have no facts to back up this intuition).  

So I don't think that the lightning network solves the problem we have today which is getting people to do their FIRST txn (expand the network) and then getting them to use it periodically (use encourages merchants to accept it).

Once people are using BTC a couple times per day, LN is becomes very valuable.  Its actually WORSE if you do just one txn in a payment channel (it takes 2 blockchain txns instead of 1).

So LN won't actually solve the typical use pattern today.  And if that pattern is forced to pay high fees people will choose other payment options stagnating Bitcoin growth (or best case transforms into low velocity digital gold) to the point where we'll never need the volumes LN can offer.



cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 11, 2015, 10:14:59 PM
 #30192

this sounds exactly like something i'd say:
The Blockstream Business Plan (self.Bitcoin)
submitted an hour ago * by Celean

And if this is true Blockstream is making a HUGE mistake.  I don't think many people are doing multiple txns per day, every day right now.  I don't even think many people do 1 txn per week.  I doubt that people will be willing to sequester coins into the LN for significant periods (no I have no facts to back up this intuition).  

So I don't think that the lightning network solves the problem we have today which is getting people to do their FIRST txn (expand the network) and then getting them to use it periodically (use encourages merchants to accept it).

Once people are using BTC a couple times per day, LN is becomes very valuable.  Its actually WORSE if you do just one txn in a payment channel (it takes 2 blockchain txns instead of 1).

So LN won't actually solve the typical use pattern today.  And if that pattern is forced to pay high fees people will choose other payment options stagnating Bitcoin growth (or best case transforms into low velocity digital gold) to the point where we'll never need the volumes LN can offer.





it was never about practicality or common sense.  let alone fairness. 

it was about greed.
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1778


http://DashNdrink.com


View Profile WWW
August 11, 2015, 10:16:10 PM
 #30193

It appears now that the reddit post proving censorship of the now "uncensored" reddit post (44% of hash power supports 8 MB) has itself been censored:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gm3ww/this_thread_was_removedhidden_from_front_page/

Quote
Just to clear things up, that thread wasn't removed by a moderator, I removed it to address some factual inaccuracies and add some additional sources. It is now reposted.

So much for thermos being the "epitome of authoritarianism" and ready to start "book burnings."   Grin

If you and the toxic Redditards (eg Frap.doc) could learn the diff between moderation and censorship, that would be great.

XTnodes = 3%


Wow, very disruption.  Such revolutionary!

The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy.  David Chaum 1996
"Monero" : { Private - Auditable - 100% Fungible - Flexible Blocksize - Wild & Free® - Intro - Core GUI - Podcats - Roadmap - Dice - Blackjack - Github - Android }
MoneroForCash.com  |  Buy and sell XMR near you  |  Easymonero.com  |  Bitsquare.io - Decentralized XMR Exchange  |  Buy XMR with fiat
Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect.  Adam Back 2014

Bitcoin is intentionally designed to be ungovernable and governance-free.  luke-jr 2016
Blocks must necessarily be full for the Bitcoin network to be able to pay for its own security.  davout 2015
Blocksize is an intentionally limited resource, like the 21e6 BTC limit.  Changing it degrades the surrounding economics, creating negative incentives.  Jeff Garzik 2013


The raison d'être of bitcoin is trustlessness. - Eric Lombrozo 2015
It is an Engineering Requirement that Bitcoin be “Above the Law”  Paul Sztorc 2015
Resiliency, not efficiency, is the paramount goal of decentralized, non-state sanctioned currency -Jon Matonis 2015

Bitcoin is intentionally designed to be ungovernable and governance-free.  luke-jr 2016

Technology tends to move in the direction of making surveillance easier, and the ability of computers to track us doubles every eighteen months. - Phil Zimmerman 2013

The only way to make software secure, reliable, and fast is to make it small. Fight Features. - Andy Tanenbaum 2004
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 11, 2015, 10:19:09 PM
 #30194

Big middle finger to iCEBLOW, brg444, tvbcof, and MOA:

iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1778


http://DashNdrink.com


View Profile WWW
August 11, 2015, 10:24:34 PM
 #30195

it was never about practicality or common sense.  let alone fairness. 

it was about greed.

Attacking what you imagine to be people's motivations is easy.

Refuting the actual computer science and game theory is hard:

Quote


Quote

The vast majority of research demonstrates that blocksize does matter, blocksize caps are required to secure the network, and large blocks are a centralizing pressure.

Here’s a short list of what has been published so far:

1) No blocksize cap and no minimum fee leads to catastrophic breakage as miners chase marginal 0 fees:

    http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2400519

It’s important to note that mandatory minimum fees could simply be rebated out-of-band, which would lead to the same problems.

2) a) Large mining pools make strategies other than honest mining more profitable:

    http://www.cs.cornell.edu/~ie53/publications/btcProcArXiv.pdf

2) b) In the presence of latency, some alternative selfish strategy exists that is more profitable at any mining pool size. The larger the latency, the greater the selfish mining benefit:

    http://arxiv.org/pdf/1507.06183v1.pdf

3) Mining simulations run by Pieter Wuille shows that well-connected peers making a majority of the hashing power have an advantage over less-connected ones, earning more profits per hash. Larger blocks even further favor these well-connected peers. This gets even worse as we shift from block subsidy to fee based reward :

    http://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net/msg08161.html

4) Other point(s):

If there is no blocksize cap, a miner should simply snipe the fees from the latest block and try to stale that block by mining their own replacement. You get all the fees plus any more from new transactions. Full blocks gives less reward for doing so, since you have to choose which transactions to include. https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3fpuld/a_transaction_fee_market_exists_without_a_block/ctqxkq6

The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy.  David Chaum 1996
"Monero" : { Private - Auditable - 100% Fungible - Flexible Blocksize - Wild & Free® - Intro - Core GUI - Podcats - Roadmap - Dice - Blackjack - Github - Android }
MoneroForCash.com  |  Buy and sell XMR near you  |  Easymonero.com  |  Bitsquare.io - Decentralized XMR Exchange  |  Buy XMR with fiat
Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect.  Adam Back 2014

Bitcoin is intentionally designed to be ungovernable and governance-free.  luke-jr 2016
Blocks must necessarily be full for the Bitcoin network to be able to pay for its own security.  davout 2015
Blocksize is an intentionally limited resource, like the 21e6 BTC limit.  Changing it degrades the surrounding economics, creating negative incentives.  Jeff Garzik 2013


The raison d'être of bitcoin is trustlessness. - Eric Lombrozo 2015
It is an Engineering Requirement that Bitcoin be “Above the Law”  Paul Sztorc 2015
Resiliency, not efficiency, is the paramount goal of decentralized, non-state sanctioned currency -Jon Matonis 2015

Bitcoin is intentionally designed to be ungovernable and governance-free.  luke-jr 2016

Technology tends to move in the direction of making surveillance easier, and the ability of computers to track us doubles every eighteen months. - Phil Zimmerman 2013

The only way to make software secure, reliable, and fast is to make it small. Fight Features. - Andy Tanenbaum 2004
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
August 11, 2015, 10:26:10 PM
 #30196

Big middle finger to iCEBLOW, brg444, tvbcof, and MOA:



you still playing that game where you pretend any random thing that suits your delusions is confirmed true if price goes up  Huh

maybe you should move away from the keyboard forever then, we had a nice little rally that time you went camping or w/e

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

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 11, 2015, 10:28:07 PM
 #30197


note the non-technical assumption that idiot makes in his post upon which he bases all his technical mis-steps.  he's wrong.  where Bitcoin XT is headed, there's a big enough pie to bring every miner currently involved in the space along for the ride.  and the miners know this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=or65M4Ht4Kk
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050



View Profile
August 11, 2015, 10:29:16 PM
 #30198

It appears now that the reddit post proving censorship of the now "uncensored" reddit post (44% of hash power supports 8 MB) has itself been censored:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gm3ww/this_thread_was_removedhidden_from_front_page/
Quote from: Celean
Just to clear things up, that thread wasn't removed by a moderator, I removed it to address some factual inaccuracies and add some additional sources. It is now reposted.
So much for thermos being the "epitome of authoritarianism" and ready to start "book burnings."   Grin

You're referring to a totally different post that was deleted by the author (the one about the Blockstream Business Plan).  Just look three comments up:


Run Bitcoin Unlimited (www.bitcoinunlimited.info)
awemany
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 28


View Profile
August 11, 2015, 10:36:57 PM
 #30199

[...]

So I don't think that the lightning network solves the problem we have today which is getting people to do their FIRST txn (expand the network) and then getting them to use it periodically (use encourages merchants to accept it).

Once people are using BTC a couple times per day, LN is becomes very valuable.  Its actually WORSE if you do just one txn in a payment channel (it takes 2 blockchain txns instead of 1).

So LN won't actually solve the typical use pattern today.  And if that pattern is forced to pay high fees people will choose other payment options stagnating Bitcoin growth (or best case transforms into low velocity digital gold) to the point where we'll never need the volumes LN can offer.

This is actually a great argument! I think you are completely 100% correct here, but to have another strong case for the blocksize increase, what we would need to have here is some data on actual usage patterns of Bitcoin to support this argument.

Did someone already extract 'typical spending patterns' vs. 'typical investment patterns' from the Blockchain?
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050



View Profile
August 11, 2015, 10:39:25 PM
 #30200

[...]

So I don't think that the lightning network solves the problem we have today which is getting people to do their FIRST txn (expand the network) and then getting them to use it periodically (use encourages merchants to accept it).

Once people are using BTC a couple times per day, LN is becomes very valuable.  Its actually WORSE if you do just one txn in a payment channel (it takes 2 blockchain txns instead of 1).

So LN won't actually solve the typical use pattern today.  And if that pattern is forced to pay high fees people will choose other payment options stagnating Bitcoin growth (or best case transforms into low velocity digital gold) to the point where we'll never need the volumes LN can offer.
This is actually a great argument!


+2.  Yes, it is a great argument thezerg!

Run Bitcoin Unlimited (www.bitcoinunlimited.info)
Pages: « 1 ... 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!