Bitcoin Forum
December 09, 2016, 11:23:23 PM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Poll
Question: Will you support Gavin's new block size limit hard fork of 8MB by January 1, 2016 then doubling every 2 years?
1.  yes
2.  no

Pages: « 1 ... 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 1559 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1807326 times)
Natalia_AnatolioPAMM
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154


View Profile WWW
August 14, 2015, 07:05:09 AM
 #30441

whoa.  look at that 7% drop in crude oil that just occurred.  someone wants out:



that looks terrifying to me

Earn money when BTC crashes - join BTC-E PAMM
1481325803
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481325803

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481325803
Reply with quote  #2

1481325803
Report to moderator
1481325803
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481325803

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481325803
Reply with quote  #2

1481325803
Report to moderator
1481325803
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481325803

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481325803
Reply with quote  #2

1481325803
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481325803
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481325803

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481325803
Reply with quote  #2

1481325803
Report to moderator
1481325803
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481325803

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481325803
Reply with quote  #2

1481325803
Report to moderator
1481325803
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481325803

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481325803
Reply with quote  #2

1481325803
Report to moderator
smoothie
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1848


LEALANA Monero Physical Silver Coins


View Profile
August 14, 2015, 07:23:58 AM
 #30442

As sickpig suggested, it would be a recognition that the block size limit is not part of the consensus layer, but rather part of the transport layer.

i never did quite get this part.  can you explain?

Sure.  

Why do we have a consensus layer in the first place?  It is a way for us to agree on what transactions are valid and what transactions are invalid.  For example, we all agree that Alice shouldn't be able to move Bob's coins without a valid signature, and that Bob shouldn't be able to create coins out of thin air.  The consensus layer is about obvious stuff like that.  In order for Bitcoin to function as sound money, we need to agree on "black-or-white" rules like this that define which transactions are valid and which are invalid.

Notice that the paragraph above discusses valid and invalid transactions.  No where did I say anything about blocks.  That's because we only really care about transactions in the first place!  In fact, how can a block be invalid just because it includes one too many valid transactions?  

Satoshi added the 1 MB limit as an anti-spam measure to deal with certain limitations of Bitcoin's transport layer--not as a new rule for what constitutes a valid transaction.  We should thus think of every block that is exclusively composed of valid transactions as itself valid.  The size of the block alone should not make it invalid.  Instead, if a block is too big, think of it as likely to be orphaned (a "gray" rule) rather than as invalid (a black-or-white rule).  Perhaps above a certain block size, we're even 100% sure that a block will be orphaned; still we should view it as a valid block!  It will be orphaned because the transport layer was insufficient to transport it across the network--not because there was anything invalid about it.

This ^

Most supporters of not changing the block size max limit (or even having one) forget that Satoshi originally put in that 1 MB limit as simply that: an anti-spam measure.

So doesn't that mean it would eventually be removed?

It seems like most people who support not changing the 1 MB limit are forgetting this very important fact.

Drama is only going to get worse within the community as long as there is discord between opinions on such a simple topic as "max block size cap".

Bitcoin (and its community) does not cease to amaze me how much drama ensues as Gavin has stated in the past.

If the drama means a lower BITCOIN price then great I can back the truck up and buy more.

███████████████████████████████████████

            ,╓p@@███████@╗╖,           
        ,p████████████████████N,       
      d█████████████████████████b     
    d██████████████████████████████æ   
  ,████²█████████████████████████████, 
 ,█████  ╙████████████████████╨  █████y
 ██████    `████████████████`    ██████
║██████       Ñ███████████`      ███████
███████         ╩██████Ñ         ███████
███████    ▐▄     ²██╩     a▌    ███████
╢██████    ▐▓█▄          ▄█▓▌    ███████
 ██████    ▐▓▓▓▓▌,     ▄█▓▓▓▌    ██████─
           ▐▓▓▓▓▓▓█,,▄▓▓▓▓▓▓▌          
           ▐▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▌          
    ▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓─  
     ²▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓╩    
        ▀▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▀       
           ²▀▀▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▀▀`          
                   ²²²                 
███████████████████████████████████████

. ★☆ WWW.LEALANA.COM        My PGP fingerprint is A764D833.        SMOOTHIE'S HEALTH AND FITNESS JOURNAL          History of Monero development Visualization ★☆ .
LEALANA  PHYSICAL MONERO COINS 999 FINE SILVER.
 
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246



View Profile
August 14, 2015, 07:29:04 AM
 #30443

Most supporters of not changing the block size max limit (or even having one) forget that Satoshi originally put in that 1 MB limit as simply that: an anti-spam measure.

So doesn't that mean it would eventually be removed?

Why would that logically make sense. Does spam no longer exist? Do you expect it to eventually not exist?

Peter R's idea of a per-node block size is intriguing. I'm still pondering it.
smoothie
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1848


LEALANA Monero Physical Silver Coins


View Profile
August 14, 2015, 07:30:07 AM
 #30444

here's further evidence the Reddit mods are steering the blocksize debate. they're letting this guy spam attack me with false allegations despite me reporting him.  same post about a dozen times:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gutfp/if_youre_not_running_a_node_youre_not_really/cu1x6fl


Yesterday you were complaining about mod "censorship" and today you are demanding the same mods censor posts you don't like.

it's a repetitive spam attack; over a dozen times the exact same slanderous post attempt at character assassination.  have you forgotten the case seems to be going nowhere and that i deny the allegations?

everybody gets it already. i am a BitcoinXT proponent and i am a threat to you Cripplecoiners.  the HF dispute has nothing to do with it as much as you'd like to tie the two together.

but of course, i wouldn't expect you to see the difference.

My comment does not mention, or even allude to, the content of the posts.  As such, you are the only one who mentioned HF and XT.

The difference, as I see it, is that you cry censorship when off-topic posts you like are moderated, but turn on a dime to complain about lack of moderation when the posts in question do not suit you.

Make your own damn subreddit about FrappuccinoCoin if you don't like the BTC mods' "epitome of authoritarianism."  They are not your servants, and it's hilarious to watch your hypocrisy in action.

yep, didn't think you'd be able to see the difference.

one being outright censorship that attempts to suppress discussion of the most important debate in the community today about Bitcoins future direction, ie the XT fork, and the other a nobody cares spammy personal slander attack that only started when i began speaking out in favor of bigger blocks.  not to mention by a coward who hides behind an anonymous identity.

Has iCEBRAKER not revealed his true identity yet?

ROFL!


███████████████████████████████████████

            ,╓p@@███████@╗╖,           
        ,p████████████████████N,       
      d█████████████████████████b     
    d██████████████████████████████æ   
  ,████²█████████████████████████████, 
 ,█████  ╙████████████████████╨  █████y
 ██████    `████████████████`    ██████
║██████       Ñ███████████`      ███████
███████         ╩██████Ñ         ███████
███████    ▐▄     ²██╩     a▌    ███████
╢██████    ▐▓█▄          ▄█▓▌    ███████
 ██████    ▐▓▓▓▓▌,     ▄█▓▓▓▌    ██████─
           ▐▓▓▓▓▓▓█,,▄▓▓▓▓▓▓▌          
           ▐▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▌          
    ▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓─  
     ²▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓╩    
        ▀▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▀       
           ²▀▀▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▀▀`          
                   ²²²                 
███████████████████████████████████████

. ★☆ WWW.LEALANA.COM        My PGP fingerprint is A764D833.        SMOOTHIE'S HEALTH AND FITNESS JOURNAL          History of Monero development Visualization ★☆ .
LEALANA  PHYSICAL MONERO COINS 999 FINE SILVER.
 
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246



View Profile
August 14, 2015, 07:33:48 AM
 #30445

So, is a monero a unique collectible unlike anything the world has seen since gold? Yes or No!

I think you mean to suggest no, but the answer might be yes. Satoshi proposed viewing Bitcoin as a new and unusual kind of metal with the property that it can be sent instantly over long distances. Monero is similar except that it has the ability to be sent over long distances without leaving a public record of having done so. Bitcoin and Monero are different in kind, but both new and usual kinds of "metals"

smoothie
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1848


LEALANA Monero Physical Silver Coins


View Profile
August 14, 2015, 07:34:13 AM
 #30446

Most supporters of not changing the block size max limit (or even having one) forget that Satoshi originally put in that 1 MB limit as simply that: an anti-spam measure.

So doesn't that mean it would eventually be removed?

Why would that logically make sense. Does spam no longer exist? Do you expect it to eventually not exist?

Peter R's idea of a per-node block size is intriguing. I'm still pondering it.


No.

The issue now is that bitcoin will eventually outgrow its 1MB max block size.

The economy/infrastructure of bitcoin is such that it can (in my view) set its own block sizes on its own (or with some moving averages of max and min block sizes) to be put into play in a dynamic fashion as opposed to hard coding a limit in.

Why hard code the limit when it can self-regulate based on current amount of transactions (averages over X time) and set a range that adjusts to periods that have more/less transactions.

Did you think Satoshi put that limit in at 1MB to be there forever? Huh

███████████████████████████████████████

            ,╓p@@███████@╗╖,           
        ,p████████████████████N,       
      d█████████████████████████b     
    d██████████████████████████████æ   
  ,████²█████████████████████████████, 
 ,█████  ╙████████████████████╨  █████y
 ██████    `████████████████`    ██████
║██████       Ñ███████████`      ███████
███████         ╩██████Ñ         ███████
███████    ▐▄     ²██╩     a▌    ███████
╢██████    ▐▓█▄          ▄█▓▌    ███████
 ██████    ▐▓▓▓▓▌,     ▄█▓▓▓▌    ██████─
           ▐▓▓▓▓▓▓█,,▄▓▓▓▓▓▓▌          
           ▐▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▌          
    ▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓─  
     ²▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓╩    
        ▀▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▀       
           ²▀▀▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▀▀`          
                   ²²²                 
███████████████████████████████████████

. ★☆ WWW.LEALANA.COM        My PGP fingerprint is A764D833.        SMOOTHIE'S HEALTH AND FITNESS JOURNAL          History of Monero development Visualization ★☆ .
LEALANA  PHYSICAL MONERO COINS 999 FINE SILVER.
 
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246



View Profile
August 14, 2015, 07:42:12 AM
 #30447

Did you think Satoshi put that limit in at 1MB to be there forever? Huh

No, I suspect he meant to add other mechanisms to control in-block spam in its place (or at least I might say, hoped to, but may not have known how to do it), but never got to it and no one else picked up that work either. Now we are kind of screwed.

smoothie
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1848


LEALANA Monero Physical Silver Coins


View Profile
August 14, 2015, 07:46:49 AM
 #30448


At this point I'd say just find a way to put the forks on the market and let's arbitrage it out. I will submit if a fork cannot gain the market cap advantage, and I suspect the small-blockers will likewise if Core loses it. Money talks.

I had a strange idea recently: what if we don't even bother with BIP100, BIP101, etc., or trying to come to "consensus" in some formal way.  What if, instead, we just make it very easy for node operators to adjust their block size limit.  Imagine a drop down menu where you can select "1 MB, 2 MB, 4 MB, 8 MB, … ."  What would happen?  

Personally, I'd just select some big block size limit, like 32 MB.  This way, I'd be guaranteed to follow the longest proof of work chain, regardless of what the effective block size limit becomes.  I'd expect many people to do the same thing.  Eventually, it becomes obvious that the economic majority is supporting a larger limit, and a brave miner publishes a block that is 1.1 MB is size.  We all witness that indeed that block got included into the longest proof of work chain, and then suddenly all miners are confident producing 1.1 MB blocks.  Thus, the effective block size limit slowly creeps upwards, as this process is repeated over and over as demand for block space grows.

TL/DR: maybe we don't need a strict definition for the max block size limit.

that's just a re-write of what i've been advocating; lift the limit entirely.

but yeah, your idea is great b/c it would give full node operators a sense of being in charge via a pull down menu.  i like it.

don't forget that mining pools are just huge hashing overlays of full nodes which they operate and could use to do the same type of voting.

Yes, you have been essentially advocating the same thing.  

We could take this idea further: in addition to the drop-down menu where node operators and miners select the max block size they'll accept, we could add two new features to improve communication of their decisions:

  1.  The max block size selected by a node would be written into the header of any blocks the node mines.

  2.  The P2P protocol would be extended so that nodes could poll other nodes to find out their block size limit.

This would be a highly decentralized way of coming to consensus in a very flexible and dynamic manner.  

It would be a recognition that the block size limit is not part of the consensus layer, but rather part of the transport layer, as sickpig suggested:

you know what I can't stop thinking that the max block size is a transport layer constraint that have crept in consensus layer.

The network would dynamically determine the max block size as the network evolves by expressing the size of the blocks they will accept with the drop-down menu on their client.

So…is this a good idea?  If there are no obvious "gotchas" then perhaps we should write up a BIP.


So would this essentially be a voting mechanism on current block size (of course it can change dynamically on the next block)?

What % would determine that a block size has "consensus"?

Interesting idea...

Just wanted to say that I am open to the idea of having dynamically allocated block sizes as long as the overall network accepts it. I don't think this is a case of "dont fix something that aint broke" like some opponents of changing the max block size from 1 MB like to say, but rather a "let's find solutions to very probable problems coming down the road in bitcoin's future before as opposed to after"

Pro-active as opposed to reactive.

███████████████████████████████████████

            ,╓p@@███████@╗╖,           
        ,p████████████████████N,       
      d█████████████████████████b     
    d██████████████████████████████æ   
  ,████²█████████████████████████████, 
 ,█████  ╙████████████████████╨  █████y
 ██████    `████████████████`    ██████
║██████       Ñ███████████`      ███████
███████         ╩██████Ñ         ███████
███████    ▐▄     ²██╩     a▌    ███████
╢██████    ▐▓█▄          ▄█▓▌    ███████
 ██████    ▐▓▓▓▓▌,     ▄█▓▓▓▌    ██████─
           ▐▓▓▓▓▓▓█,,▄▓▓▓▓▓▓▌          
           ▐▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▌          
    ▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓─  
     ²▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓╩    
        ▀▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▀       
           ²▀▀▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▀▀`          
                   ²²²                 
███████████████████████████████████████

. ★☆ WWW.LEALANA.COM        My PGP fingerprint is A764D833.        SMOOTHIE'S HEALTH AND FITNESS JOURNAL          History of Monero development Visualization ★☆ .
LEALANA  PHYSICAL MONERO COINS 999 FINE SILVER.
 
smoothie
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1848


LEALANA Monero Physical Silver Coins


View Profile
August 14, 2015, 07:49:15 AM
 #30449

Did you think Satoshi put that limit in at 1MB to be there forever? Huh

No, I suspect he meant to add other mechanisms to control in-block spam in its place (or at least I might say, hoped to, but may not have known how to do it), but never got to it and no one else picked up that work either. Now we are kind of screwed.



How are we screwed if we have time to try to find solutions?

Even though there is a lot of drama and shit flinging fits around here, I still believe bitcoin (by its community of supporters) will find a solution to the cliff we are going to go over at some point.

Having intermediaries trying to profit by keeping the bitcoin block size at 1MB is questionable to me.


███████████████████████████████████████

            ,╓p@@███████@╗╖,           
        ,p████████████████████N,       
      d█████████████████████████b     
    d██████████████████████████████æ   
  ,████²█████████████████████████████, 
 ,█████  ╙████████████████████╨  █████y
 ██████    `████████████████`    ██████
║██████       Ñ███████████`      ███████
███████         ╩██████Ñ         ███████
███████    ▐▄     ²██╩     a▌    ███████
╢██████    ▐▓█▄          ▄█▓▌    ███████
 ██████    ▐▓▓▓▓▌,     ▄█▓▓▓▌    ██████─
           ▐▓▓▓▓▓▓█,,▄▓▓▓▓▓▓▌          
           ▐▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▌          
    ▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓─  
     ²▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓╩    
        ▀▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▀       
           ²▀▀▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▀▀`          
                   ²²²                 
███████████████████████████████████████

. ★☆ WWW.LEALANA.COM        My PGP fingerprint is A764D833.        SMOOTHIE'S HEALTH AND FITNESS JOURNAL          History of Monero development Visualization ★☆ .
LEALANA  PHYSICAL MONERO COINS 999 FINE SILVER.
 
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246



View Profile
August 14, 2015, 07:52:42 AM
 #30450

Did you think Satoshi put that limit in at 1MB to be there forever? Huh

No, I suspect he meant to add other mechanisms to control in-block spam in its place (or at least I might say, hoped to, but may not have known how to do it), but never got to it and no one else picked up that work either. Now we are kind of screwed.



How are we screwed if we have time to try to find solutions?

I meant screwed on the assumption that the 1 MB is about to fill up and cause problems.

But has anyone considered that a good solution may not even exist? Bitcoin is a new thing that has never been done before and is not a law of nature that Bitcoin must "work" in general (for example at larger scale).

In my experience in building software, often problems that get the kick-the-can treatment don't end up having good solutions later either. Maybe 1MB was satoshi kicking-the-can?

I'm not claiming this, just asking the question.

smoothie
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1848


LEALANA Monero Physical Silver Coins


View Profile
August 14, 2015, 07:57:11 AM
 #30451

Did you think Satoshi put that limit in at 1MB to be there forever? Huh

No, I suspect he meant to add other mechanisms to control in-block spam in its place (or at least I might say, hoped to, but may not have known how to do it), but never got to it and no one else picked up that work either. Now we are kind of screwed.



How are we screwed if we have time to try to find solutions?

I meant screwed on the assumption that the 1 MB is about to fill up and cause problems.

But has anyone considered that a good solution may not even exist? Bitcoin is a new thing that has never been done before and is not a law of nature that Bitcoin must "work" in general (for example at larger scale).

In my experience in building software, often problems that get the kick-the-can treatment don't end up having good solutions later either. Maybe 1MB was satoshi kicking-the-can?

I'm not claiming this, just asking the question.



Well is good the same as perfect?

I believe there is a good solution but not a perfect one. Sounds like the solution may be a moving target (dynamic in nature).

███████████████████████████████████████

            ,╓p@@███████@╗╖,           
        ,p████████████████████N,       
      d█████████████████████████b     
    d██████████████████████████████æ   
  ,████²█████████████████████████████, 
 ,█████  ╙████████████████████╨  █████y
 ██████    `████████████████`    ██████
║██████       Ñ███████████`      ███████
███████         ╩██████Ñ         ███████
███████    ▐▄     ²██╩     a▌    ███████
╢██████    ▐▓█▄          ▄█▓▌    ███████
 ██████    ▐▓▓▓▓▌,     ▄█▓▓▓▌    ██████─
           ▐▓▓▓▓▓▓█,,▄▓▓▓▓▓▓▌          
           ▐▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▌          
    ▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓─  
     ²▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓╩    
        ▀▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▀       
           ²▀▀▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▀▀`          
                   ²²²                 
███████████████████████████████████████

. ★☆ WWW.LEALANA.COM        My PGP fingerprint is A764D833.        SMOOTHIE'S HEALTH AND FITNESS JOURNAL          History of Monero development Visualization ★☆ .
LEALANA  PHYSICAL MONERO COINS 999 FINE SILVER.
 
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246



View Profile
August 14, 2015, 08:02:09 AM
 #30452

Did you think Satoshi put that limit in at 1MB to be there forever? Huh

No, I suspect he meant to add other mechanisms to control in-block spam in its place (or at least I might say, hoped to, but may not have known how to do it), but never got to it and no one else picked up that work either. Now we are kind of screwed.



How are we screwed if we have time to try to find solutions?

I meant screwed on the assumption that the 1 MB is about to fill up and cause problems.

But has anyone considered that a good solution may not even exist? Bitcoin is a new thing that has never been done before and is not a law of nature that Bitcoin must "work" in general (for example at larger scale).

In my experience in building software, often problems that get the kick-the-can treatment don't end up having good solutions later either. Maybe 1MB was satoshi kicking-the-can?

I'm not claiming this, just asking the question.



Well is good the same as perfect?

Certainly not

Quote
I believe there is a good solution but not a perfect one. Sounds like the solution may be a moving target (dynamic in nature).

I hope you are right but I don't really know if there is.

Most of these ideas that get thrown out are stuff that seems like a good idea but nobody can make a rigorous argument why they won't break.

smoothie
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1848


LEALANA Monero Physical Silver Coins


View Profile
August 14, 2015, 08:05:28 AM
 #30453

Did you think Satoshi put that limit in at 1MB to be there forever? Huh

No, I suspect he meant to add other mechanisms to control in-block spam in its place (or at least I might say, hoped to, but may not have known how to do it), but never got to it and no one else picked up that work either. Now we are kind of screwed.



How are we screwed if we have time to try to find solutions?

I meant screwed on the assumption that the 1 MB is about to fill up and cause problems.

But has anyone considered that a good solution may not even exist? Bitcoin is a new thing that has never been done before and is not a law of nature that Bitcoin must "work" in general (for example at larger scale).

In my experience in building software, often problems that get the kick-the-can treatment don't end up having good solutions later either. Maybe 1MB was satoshi kicking-the-can?

I'm not claiming this, just asking the question.



Well is good the same as perfect?

Certainly not

Quote
I believe there is a good solution but not a perfect one. Sounds like the solution may be a moving target (dynamic in nature).

I hope you are right but I don't really know if there is.

Most of these ideas that get thrown out are stuff that seems like a good idea but nobody can make a rigorous argument why they won't break.



Did you have any thoughts after reading Peter R's paper? It seemed to describe the major issues as they are in their current form.

Lots of math and tons of variables to reference. I found myself going back to the definition of VARs page constantly to follow his logic/math/etc.

███████████████████████████████████████

            ,╓p@@███████@╗╖,           
        ,p████████████████████N,       
      d█████████████████████████b     
    d██████████████████████████████æ   
  ,████²█████████████████████████████, 
 ,█████  ╙████████████████████╨  █████y
 ██████    `████████████████`    ██████
║██████       Ñ███████████`      ███████
███████         ╩██████Ñ         ███████
███████    ▐▄     ²██╩     a▌    ███████
╢██████    ▐▓█▄          ▄█▓▌    ███████
 ██████    ▐▓▓▓▓▌,     ▄█▓▓▓▌    ██████─
           ▐▓▓▓▓▓▓█,,▄▓▓▓▓▓▓▌          
           ▐▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▌          
    ▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓─  
     ²▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓╩    
        ▀▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▀       
           ²▀▀▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▀▀`          
                   ²²²                 
███████████████████████████████████████

. ★☆ WWW.LEALANA.COM        My PGP fingerprint is A764D833.        SMOOTHIE'S HEALTH AND FITNESS JOURNAL          History of Monero development Visualization ★☆ .
LEALANA  PHYSICAL MONERO COINS 999 FINE SILVER.
 
smoothie
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1848


LEALANA Monero Physical Silver Coins


View Profile
August 14, 2015, 08:07:11 AM
 #30454

What makes this entire experience exciting is that we are in uncharted waters going through this controversy.

Exciting times ahead.

███████████████████████████████████████

            ,╓p@@███████@╗╖,           
        ,p████████████████████N,       
      d█████████████████████████b     
    d██████████████████████████████æ   
  ,████²█████████████████████████████, 
 ,█████  ╙████████████████████╨  █████y
 ██████    `████████████████`    ██████
║██████       Ñ███████████`      ███████
███████         ╩██████Ñ         ███████
███████    ▐▄     ²██╩     a▌    ███████
╢██████    ▐▓█▄          ▄█▓▌    ███████
 ██████    ▐▓▓▓▓▌,     ▄█▓▓▓▌    ██████─
           ▐▓▓▓▓▓▓█,,▄▓▓▓▓▓▓▌          
           ▐▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▌          
    ▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓─  
     ²▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓╩    
        ▀▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▀       
           ²▀▀▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▀▀`          
                   ²²²                 
███████████████████████████████████████

. ★☆ WWW.LEALANA.COM        My PGP fingerprint is A764D833.        SMOOTHIE'S HEALTH AND FITNESS JOURNAL          History of Monero development Visualization ★☆ .
LEALANA  PHYSICAL MONERO COINS 999 FINE SILVER.
 
Zarathustra
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 938


View Profile
August 14, 2015, 08:07:44 AM
 #30455

here's further evidence the Reddit mods are steering the blocksize debate. they're letting this guy spam attack me with false allegations despite me reporting him.  same post about a dozen times:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gutfp/if_youre_not_running_a_node_youre_not_really/cu1x6fl


Yesterday you were complaining about mod "censorship" and today you are demanding the same mods censor posts you don't like.

it's a repetitive spam attack; over a dozen times the exact same slanderous post attempt at character assassination.  have you forgotten the case seems to be going nowhere and that i deny the allegations?

everybody gets it already. i am a BitcoinXT proponent and i am a threat to you Cripplecoiners.  the HF dispute has nothing to do with it as much as you'd like to tie the two together.

but of course, i wouldn't expect you to see the difference.

My comment does not mention, or even allude to, the content of the posts.  As such, you are the only one who mentioned HF and XT.

The difference, as I see it, is that you cry censorship when off-topic posts you like are moderated, but turn on a dime to complain about lack of moderation when the posts in question do not suit you.

Make your own damn subreddit about FrappuccinoCoin if you don't like the BTC mods' "epitome of authoritarianism."  They are not your servants, and it's hilarious to watch your hypocrisy in action.

yep, didn't think you'd be able to see the difference.

one being outright censorship that attempts to suppress discussion of the most important debate in the community today about Bitcoins future direction, ie the XT fork, and the other a nobody cares spammy personal slander attack that only started when i began speaking out in favor of bigger blocks.  not to mention by a coward who hides behind an anonymous identity.

If anything has to be moderated, than it is the anonymous cowards who attack the privacy of others.
Everybody should be able to see the difference.

"Staat nenne ich's, wo alle Gifttrinker sind, Gute und Schlimme: Staat, wo alle sich selber verlieren, Gute und Schlimme:
Staat, wo der langsame Selbstmord aller – »das Leben« heisst."
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246



View Profile
August 14, 2015, 08:14:47 AM
 #30456

Did you think Satoshi put that limit in at 1MB to be there forever? Huh

No, I suspect he meant to add other mechanisms to control in-block spam in its place (or at least I might say, hoped to, but may not have known how to do it), but never got to it and no one else picked up that work either. Now we are kind of screwed.



How are we screwed if we have time to try to find solutions?

I meant screwed on the assumption that the 1 MB is about to fill up and cause problems.

But has anyone considered that a good solution may not even exist? Bitcoin is a new thing that has never been done before and is not a law of nature that Bitcoin must "work" in general (for example at larger scale).

In my experience in building software, often problems that get the kick-the-can treatment don't end up having good solutions later either. Maybe 1MB was satoshi kicking-the-can?

I'm not claiming this, just asking the question.



Well is good the same as perfect?

Certainly not

Quote
I believe there is a good solution but not a perfect one. Sounds like the solution may be a moving target (dynamic in nature).

I hope you are right but I don't really know if there is.

Most of these ideas that get thrown out are stuff that seems like a good idea but nobody can make a rigorous argument why they won't break.



Did you have any thoughts after reading Peter R's paper? It seemed to describe the major issues as they are in their current form.

Lots of math and tons of variables to reference. I found myself going back to the definition of VARs page constantly to follow his logic/math/etc.

It answered the question of whether a fee market will collapse under certain conditions, with some simplifying assumptions about the network. I don't believe it answered (or even asked) the questions surrounding decentralization at all. You can have a fee market (in fact it is the most obvious case of one) with a single node serving the entire world. Obviously that is not a desirable outcome and nothing in his paper addresses it (nor tries to, which is fine -- that what's what papers do, they don't need to answer every question).
smoothie
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1848


LEALANA Monero Physical Silver Coins


View Profile
August 14, 2015, 08:40:52 AM
 #30457

Did you think Satoshi put that limit in at 1MB to be there forever? Huh

No, I suspect he meant to add other mechanisms to control in-block spam in its place (or at least I might say, hoped to, but may not have known how to do it), but never got to it and no one else picked up that work either. Now we are kind of screwed.



How are we screwed if we have time to try to find solutions?

I meant screwed on the assumption that the 1 MB is about to fill up and cause problems.

But has anyone considered that a good solution may not even exist? Bitcoin is a new thing that has never been done before and is not a law of nature that Bitcoin must "work" in general (for example at larger scale).

In my experience in building software, often problems that get the kick-the-can treatment don't end up having good solutions later either. Maybe 1MB was satoshi kicking-the-can?

I'm not claiming this, just asking the question.



Well is good the same as perfect?

Certainly not

Quote
I believe there is a good solution but not a perfect one. Sounds like the solution may be a moving target (dynamic in nature).

I hope you are right but I don't really know if there is.

Most of these ideas that get thrown out are stuff that seems like a good idea but nobody can make a rigorous argument why they won't break.



Did you have any thoughts after reading Peter R's paper? It seemed to describe the major issues as they are in their current form.

Lots of math and tons of variables to reference. I found myself going back to the definition of VARs page constantly to follow his logic/math/etc.

It answered the question of whether a fee market will collapse under certain conditions, with some simplifying assumptions about the network. I don't believe it answered (or even asked) the questions surrounding decentralization at all. You can have a fee market (in fact it is the most obvious case of one) with a single node serving the entire world. Obviously that is not a desirable outcome and nothing in his paper addresses it (nor tries to, which is fine -- that what's what papers do, they don't need to answer every question).


We already have a fee market.

But it isn't one that is very competitive yet.

Basically do we keep 1 MB cap and create a competitive fee market or raise the limit with some mechanism and eliminate the need for a competitive fee market while not turning users away and being forced to use intermediaries as payment channels.


███████████████████████████████████████

            ,╓p@@███████@╗╖,           
        ,p████████████████████N,       
      d█████████████████████████b     
    d██████████████████████████████æ   
  ,████²█████████████████████████████, 
 ,█████  ╙████████████████████╨  █████y
 ██████    `████████████████`    ██████
║██████       Ñ███████████`      ███████
███████         ╩██████Ñ         ███████
███████    ▐▄     ²██╩     a▌    ███████
╢██████    ▐▓█▄          ▄█▓▌    ███████
 ██████    ▐▓▓▓▓▌,     ▄█▓▓▓▌    ██████─
           ▐▓▓▓▓▓▓█,,▄▓▓▓▓▓▓▌          
           ▐▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▌          
    ▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓─  
     ²▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓╩    
        ▀▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▀       
           ²▀▀▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▀▀`          
                   ²²²                 
███████████████████████████████████████

. ★☆ WWW.LEALANA.COM        My PGP fingerprint is A764D833.        SMOOTHIE'S HEALTH AND FITNESS JOURNAL          History of Monero development Visualization ★☆ .
LEALANA  PHYSICAL MONERO COINS 999 FINE SILVER.
 
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246



View Profile
August 14, 2015, 08:47:07 AM
 #30458

Did you think Satoshi put that limit in at 1MB to be there forever? Huh

No, I suspect he meant to add other mechanisms to control in-block spam in its place (or at least I might say, hoped to, but may not have known how to do it), but never got to it and no one else picked up that work either. Now we are kind of screwed.



How are we screwed if we have time to try to find solutions?

I meant screwed on the assumption that the 1 MB is about to fill up and cause problems.

But has anyone considered that a good solution may not even exist? Bitcoin is a new thing that has never been done before and is not a law of nature that Bitcoin must "work" in general (for example at larger scale).

In my experience in building software, often problems that get the kick-the-can treatment don't end up having good solutions later either. Maybe 1MB was satoshi kicking-the-can?

I'm not claiming this, just asking the question.



Well is good the same as perfect?

Certainly not

Quote
I believe there is a good solution but not a perfect one. Sounds like the solution may be a moving target (dynamic in nature).

I hope you are right but I don't really know if there is.

Most of these ideas that get thrown out are stuff that seems like a good idea but nobody can make a rigorous argument why they won't break.



Did you have any thoughts after reading Peter R's paper? It seemed to describe the major issues as they are in their current form.

Lots of math and tons of variables to reference. I found myself going back to the definition of VARs page constantly to follow his logic/math/etc.

It answered the question of whether a fee market will collapse under certain conditions, with some simplifying assumptions about the network. I don't believe it answered (or even asked) the questions surrounding decentralization at all. You can have a fee market (in fact it is the most obvious case of one) with a single node serving the entire world. Obviously that is not a desirable outcome and nothing in his paper addresses it (nor tries to, which is fine -- that what's what papers do, they don't need to answer every question).


We already have a fee market.

But it isn't one that is very competitive yet.

Basically do we keep 1 MB cap and create a competitive fee market or raise the limit with some mechanism and eliminate the need for a competitive fee market while not turning users away and being forced to use intermediaries as payment channels.



Yes that is the question of course. My question has always been if we get rid of the 1 MB what do we do about spam control. One answer is "don't worry be happy" arguing, in effect, that the original cap was unnecessary. I'm not sure I buy it.







cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 14, 2015, 11:17:52 AM
 #30459

Did you think Satoshi put that limit in at 1MB to be there forever? Huh

No, I suspect he meant to add other mechanisms to control in-block spam in its place (or at least I might say, hoped to, but may not have known how to do it), but never got to it and no one else picked up that work either. Now we are kind of screwed.



How are we screwed if we have time to try to find solutions?

I meant screwed on the assumption that the 1 MB is about to fill up and cause problems.

But has anyone considered that a good solution may not even exist? Bitcoin is a new thing that has never been done before and is not a law of nature that Bitcoin must "work" in general (for example at larger scale).

In my experience in building software, often problems that get the kick-the-can treatment don't end up having good solutions later either. Maybe 1MB was satoshi kicking-the-can?

I'm not claiming this, just asking the question.



Well is good the same as perfect?

Certainly not

Quote
I believe there is a good solution but not a perfect one. Sounds like the solution may be a moving target (dynamic in nature).

I hope you are right but I don't really know if there is.

Most of these ideas that get thrown out are stuff that seems like a good idea but nobody can make a rigorous argument why they won't break.



Did you have any thoughts after reading Peter R's paper? It seemed to describe the major issues as they are in their current form.

Lots of math and tons of variables to reference. I found myself going back to the definition of VARs page constantly to follow his logic/math/etc.

It answered the question of whether a fee market will collapse under certain conditions, with some simplifying assumptions about the network. I don't believe it answered (or even asked) the questions surrounding decentralization at all. You can have a fee market (in fact it is the most obvious case of one) with a single node serving the entire world. Obviously that is not a desirable outcome and nothing in his paper addresses it (nor tries to, which is fine -- that what's what papers do, they don't need to answer every question).


We already have a fee market.

But it isn't one that is very competitive yet.

Basically do we keep 1 MB cap and create a competitive fee market or raise the limit with some mechanism and eliminate the need for a competitive fee market while not turning users away and being forced to use intermediaries as payment channels.



Yes that is the question of course. My question has always been if we get rid of the 1 MB what do we do about spam control. One answer is "don't worry be happy" arguing, in effect, that the original cap was unnecessary. I'm not sure I buy it.









For whatever reason, you seem to keep  ignoring the very answers to your fears that I and guys like Peter have been detailing to you in excruciating detail over and over again.

As long as miners and nodes have the freedom to set what size TX's they will validate and relay, which they do, they can protect their mempools from crashing. As long as miners are free to set their own block sizes, which they are, they can defend themselves from spam, however they want to define it. As long as users have the ability to outbid a spammers fee, which they will in a no limit situation, they can choose to either do so or walk away. As long as core dev can't be involved in setting  limits, which they won't, then  they can't be involved in picking winners and losers,which  is good.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 14, 2015, 11:40:10 AM
 #30460

Furthermore, as long as spammers have to pay a minimum fee, which they do, conducting an attack is a dangerous and expensive random walk upwards for them to attempt in a no limit scenario. Losses could have no limit when going up against the Bitcoin network.

This has been a long discussed means to combat email spam that never got tried afaik. Probably because there was no practical financial means to charge for it in the traditional fiat system.
Pages: « 1 ... 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 1559 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!