Bitcoin Forum
October 23, 2018, 06:41:41 AM *
News: Make sure you are not using versions of Bitcoin Core other than 0.17.0 [Torrent], 0.16.3, 0.15.2, or 0.14.3. More info.
 
   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 ... 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 2028266 times)
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162
Merit: 1007



View Profile
August 14, 2015, 04:31:13 PM
 #30461


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...


I would look at this as a signalling mechanism rather than as a voting mechanism.  

Here's the difference:  

In BIP100, the result of voting affects the behaviour of the software in a pre-defined way.  

In this new proposal, the signalling doesn't have any effect on the software.  Instead, it is used as a way to communicate the maximum block size the network will accept to people (albeit in a fuzzy way). 

It is sort of like NewLiberty's idea of a feedback-loop based block size limit, but the feedback is achieved by the actions of people rather than by the behaviour of code.

Run Bitcoin Unlimited (www.bitcoinunlimited.info)
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1162
Merit: 1007



View Profile
August 14, 2015, 04:33:10 PM
 #30462

You may also need to add a mechanism to alert the user when the network does fork away from their limit.

Agreed.  Anything that helps node operators track the consensus of the network would be a positive.  Mengerian spoke to this here.

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

Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002



View Profile
August 14, 2015, 04:35:33 PM
 #30463

it seems the avg Bitcoiner can't bear to hear or even discuss "possible" messy scenarios as Mike is quite rightfully willing to do.

It's pretty clear that Mike doesn't understand what an economic majority means. If you have the economic majority, you don't need to enforce a "technical mess" to fix anything.

I still don't understand how anyone interested in Bitcoin can support anything associated with Hearn after hearing anything the guy has to say, unless they actually want to turn Bitcoin into something completely unrecognizable.

I'm not completely opposed to bigger blocks, but I am completely opposed to BitcoinXT and anything Hearn.

yeah, if you look in his redlist thread you'll see me in there as one of the most vocal against tracking coins. 

i get the concern.  if i had my choice, i'd have Gavin be the lead for XT.  but it appears he doesn't want the job inexplicably to the Cripplecoiner's shouts of "benevolent dictator".  so it looks like we'll just have to trust what he says about not wanting or having time to lead much.  good thing is Gavin does have commit access.  we can always fork away from him if he abuses his power but certainly that is not the preferred scenario.  all i know is that i don't want to be under a regime with folks like gmax, Back, and LukeJr in charge.  those guys have already abused their power afaic.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002



View Profile
August 14, 2015, 04:38:04 PM
 #30464


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...


I would look at this as a signalling mechanism rather than as a voting mechanism.  

Here's the difference:  

In BIP100, the result of voting affects the behaviour of the software in a pre-defined way.  

In this new proposal, the signalling doesn't have any effect on the software.  Instead, it is used as a way to communicate the maximum block size the network will accept to people (albeit in a fuzzy way). 

It is sort of like NewLiberty's idea of a feedback-loop based block size limit, but the feedback is achieved by the actions of people rather than by the behaviour of code.

the more you talk about this the more i like it, Peter.
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1932
Merit: 1056



View Profile
August 14, 2015, 04:39:20 PM
 #30465

Or scroll back through his post history and notice how which competitors this 'core dev' for Monero and now AEON is attacking:  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=13813;sa=showPosts

Yes please do. For example, one of them is currently plagiarizing Bitcoin Core's code, complete with identical bugs, stripping out the copyright messages, reformatting it, and passing it off as it's own work. Here is the link to that, with evidence

When I call them out for that, I'm attacked as a troll, and blobafett2 adds that to his list of reasons I have a "conflict of interest" and takes it upon himself to "investigate" it.

Well, I just happen to think these scammers need to be called out when they do things like that.

This has nothing to with iCE. There is no tag team (for example I don't think iCE has commented on the plagiarizing, reformatting scam at all), except that we both happen to hold blobafett2's favorite scam, Dash, to the same level of scrutiny and it drives them crazy.

So now he is stalking me by following me around and posting his personal attacks on each and thread I ever post on now, whether related or not to his agenda or subject matter in any way whatsoever.
BlockaFett
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 364
Merit: 250

@blockafett


View Profile WWW
August 14, 2015, 04:40:21 PM
 #30466

well now i am just insulted.  i thought they spent all their time here?! Grin
I think I can speak for the majority of the Alt section when I say "we wish they did" Cheesy

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002



View Profile
August 14, 2015, 04:48:29 PM
 #30467

Or scroll back through his post history and notice how which competitors this 'core dev' for Monero and now AEON is attacking:  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=13813;sa=showPosts

Yes please do. For example, one of them is currently plagiarizing Bitcoin Core's code, complete with identical bugs, stripping out the copyright messages, reformatting it, and passing it off as it's own work. Here is the link to that, with evidence

When I call them out for that, I'm attacked as a troll, and blobafett2 adds that to his list of reasons I have a "conflict of interest" and takes it upon himself to "investigate" it.

Well, I just happen to think these scammers need to be called out when they do things like that.

This has nothing to with iCE. There is no tag team (for example I don't think iCE has commented on the plagiarizing, reformatting scam at all), except that we both happen to hold blobafett2's favorite scam, Dash, to the same level of scrutiny and it drives them crazy.

So now he is stalking me by following me around and posting his personal attacks on each and thread I ever post on now, whether related or not to his agenda or subject matter in any way whatsoever.


sounds like what i'm going thru on Reddit.

if i had to guess who was behind the /u/shiller1235 and /u/exposing_shills troll accts, i would have to guess it was /u/marcus_of_augustus who is the OP of his linked BCT thread.
BlockaFett
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 364
Merit: 250

@blockafett


View Profile WWW
August 14, 2015, 04:56:40 PM
 #30468

Or scroll back through his post history and notice how which competitors this 'core dev' for Monero and now AEON is attacking:  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=13813;sa=showPosts

Yes please do. For example, one of them is currently plagiarizing Bitcoin Core's code, complete with identical bugs, stripping out the copyright messages, reformatting it, and passing it off as it's own work. Here is the link to that, with evidence

When I call them out for that, I'm attacked as a troll, and blobafett2 adds that to his list of reasons I have a "conflict of interest" and takes it upon himself to "investigate" it.

Well, I just happen to think these scammers need to be called out when they do things like that.

This has nothing to with iCE. There is no tag team (for example I don't think iCE has commented on the plagiarizing, reformatting scam at all), except that we both happen to hold blobafett2's favorite scam, Dash, to the same level of scrutiny and it drives them crazy.

So now he is stalking me by following me around and posting his personal attacks on each and thread I ever post on now, whether related or not to his agenda or subject matter in any way whatsoever.


Smooth - Like I said I don't know anything about 'VNL', but I know that yesterday you threatened the entire Dash community on their official thread that if the 'media' doesn't agree to your demands you will spam their thread every day until they do, about a topic you have already posted about 1000s of times and was resolved by the community 18 months ago.

public service announcement

Dash (formerly xcoin and darkcoin) had a significant fastmine over the first 48 hours of its existence (~2 million coins). These facts should not be glossed over by those seeking a fairly launched coin, so until the dash media reflects these facts, this warning will be posted every 24 hours on the BCT dash thread. This warning will not be posted when the media reflects these facts. For those seeking more information Monero Developer Smooth has created a thread with the pertinent facts: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=999886.0

That would be great, except you are the core dev of 2 smaller 'anon coin' competitors who's communities talk more about 'beating Dash and Bitcoin' than they do about your coins, so who looks like the scammer with this kind of unethical, unprofessional, and gutter-level type of behaviour?  

Calling me a scammer is going to be a hard one, I have never asked anyone for money, and I busted the Mintpal scammer (who you remind me of lol) on my own time to try to help people after realizing I got scammed myself:  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=824211.0

I already showed how your web wallet MyMonero.com was sending user's private keys to the server, contrary to your mantra that '"everything is client side and private keys never go to the server' so actually there is not security at all - and since I revealed that and your lead dev acknowledged it, nothing was said to your community who are still in the dark.  

If you care about privacy and are not a scammer, why didn't you warn your users that their keys / funds could have been compromised - nothing was ever announced on your thread, and people are still using it  Huh

I don't want to argue with you on this thread Smooth as that's not fair, if you want to talk more come to the other thread where you are nicely contained from harming the rest of the BCT community. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1151565.0


smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1932
Merit: 1056



View Profile
August 14, 2015, 04:57:10 PM
 #30469

well now i am just insulted.  i thought they spent all their time here?! Grin
I think I can speak for the majority of the Alt section when I say "we wish they did" Cheesy

Yes I'm sure they would. Because 90% or more of the Alt section are a bunch of lying, thieving, plagiarizing, instamining rip-off artists. They would very much like it people such as iCE and myself were not there, so they could scam without being challenged over it.
Zarathustra
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106
Merit: 1000



View Profile
August 14, 2015, 04:59:05 PM
 #30470

Should maxblocksize increase? Which proposal do you prefer?  (Voting closes: September 04, 2015, 01:06:49 PM)

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1144606.0
BlockaFett
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 364
Merit: 250

@blockafett


View Profile WWW
August 14, 2015, 05:00:00 PM
 #30471

well now i am just insulted.  i thought they spent all their time here?! Grin
I think I can speak for the majority of the Alt section when I say "we wish they did" Cheesy

Yes I'm sure they would. Because 90% or more of the Alt section are a bunch of lying, thieving, plagiarizing, instamining rip-off artists. They would very much like it people such iCE and myself were not there, so they could scam without being challenged over it.

In that sense you're a bit like 2 monks wending their way around the heathen Alt community trying to spread love in a chaotic world? /s

I would say more like 2 confidence tricksters trying to make a quick buck, with the minority of genuine alt communities trying to experiment with new tech providing the 'funding' for your valuable time.

smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1932
Merit: 1056



View Profile
August 14, 2015, 05:02:30 PM
 #30472

well now i am just insulted.  i thought they spent all their time here?! Grin
I think I can speak for the majority of the Alt section when I say "we wish they did" Cheesy

Yes I'm sure they would. Because 90% or more of the Alt section are a bunch of lying, thieving, plagiarizing, instamining rip-off artists. They would very much like it people such iCE and myself were not there, so they could scam without being challenged over it.

In that sense you're a bit like 2 monks wending their way around the heathen Alt community trying to spread love in a chaotic world? /s

I would say more like 2 confidence tricksters trying to make a quick buck, with the minority of genuine alt communities trying to experiment with new tech providing the 'funding' for your valuable time.

Let's just leave it at that then, people have the information, they can decide if iCEBREAKER is and/or I am a confidence tricker trying to make a quick buck.

Meanwhile, please stop stalking me on this thread.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644
Merit: 500

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
August 14, 2015, 05:05:58 PM
 #30473

well now i am just insulted.  i thought they spent all their time here?! Grin
I think I can speak for the majority of the Alt section when I say "we wish they did" Cheesy

And I think I speak for the majority when I say keep this in the alt section, please.

"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
BlockaFett
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 364
Merit: 250

@blockafett


View Profile WWW
August 14, 2015, 05:06:54 PM
 #30474

well now i am just insulted.  i thought they spent all their time here?! Grin
I think I can speak for the majority of the Alt section when I say "we wish they did" Cheesy

Yes I'm sure they would. Because 90% or more of the Alt section are a bunch of lying, thieving, plagiarizing, instamining rip-off artists. They would very much like it people such iCE and myself were not there, so they could scam without being challenged over it.

In that sense you're a bit like 2 monks wending their way around the heathen Alt community trying to spread love in a chaotic world? /s

I would say more like 2 confidence tricksters trying to make a quick buck, with the minority of genuine alt communities trying to experiment with new tech providing the 'funding' for your valuable time.

Let's just leave it at that then, people have the information, they can decide if iCEBREAKER is and/or I am a confidence tricker trying to make a quick buck.

Meanwhile, please stop stalking me on this thread.

Not stalking - even if a few people start to wake up that you are an (admittedly smart) manipulator / confidence trickster, it's a post well spent.

Cheers

BlockaFett
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 364
Merit: 250

@blockafett


View Profile WWW
August 14, 2015, 05:07:46 PM
 #30475

well now i am just insulted.  i thought they spent all their time here?! Grin
I think I can speak for the majority of the Alt section when I say "we wish they did" Cheesy

And I think I speak for the majority when I say keep this in the alt section, please.

Above was the last post from me.

Voted: Yes.

sgbett
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652
Merit: 1014



View Profile
August 14, 2015, 05:16:43 PM
 #30476

well now i am just insulted.  i thought they spent all their time here?! Grin
I think I can speak for the majority of the Alt section when I say "we wish they did" Cheesy

And I think I speak for the majority when I say keep this in the alt section, please.

Thats one thing we definitely have consensus on Smiley

"A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution" - Satoshi Nakamoto
http://haschinabannedbitcoin.com
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002



View Profile
August 14, 2015, 05:25:33 PM
 #30477

this is what i think has happened with Blockstream:

 First they ignore it, then they attempt to fight it, and finally, when it becomes obvious that the fight can't be won, they try to buy it. We seem to be entering the third stage now, so those of us who see the long-term advantages of Bitcoin should be on our toes. Big banks have failed to discredit the idea, now the danger is that they will just buy it.


http://www.nasdaq.com/article/bitcoin-how-my-views-and-the-currency-have-changed-during-the-last-year-cm508666
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2660
Merit: 1005


View Profile
August 14, 2015, 05:29:57 PM
 #30478

well now i am just insulted.  i thought they spent all their time here?! Grin
I think I can speak for the majority of the Alt section when I say "we wish they did" Cheesy
And I think I speak for the majority when I say keep this in the alt section, please.

For my part I often get valuable information out of various spats like this and I don't follow most of the other boards.  I don't follow the alt boards at all since I don't have an interest (financially) in any alts and not enough of an interest (intellectually) to justify they effort.  I temper my interpretation of what someone says based on my understanding of the person's affiliations and history.  I always have to be the consensus breaker I guess. 


cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002



View Profile
August 14, 2015, 05:36:50 PM
 #30479

looks to me like this post by Mike has been taken down off the main page by mods:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3griiv/on_consensus_and_forks_by_mike_hearn/

Still there for me. If they were taking it this far, modding a heavily commented thread off the front page, that would generate some serious blowback, so I doubt they would.

hmm, back up for me too.  WTF?

/u/raisethelimit has been having all sorts of problems:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gsxqf/all_my_posts_are_currently_being_censored_this_is/cu19uva?context=3

This is the second time in the past few days it has looked like a possible internal squabble among the mods. Perhaps someone is hiding them and someone else is reinstating them.

i think we have a winner:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gz9ut/do_the_stress_tests_show_that_gavin_was_wrong/cu2udsv
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400
Merit: 1006



View Profile WWW
August 14, 2015, 05:41:42 PM
 #30480

I still don't understand how anyone interested in Bitcoin can support anything associated with Hearn after hearing anything the guy has to say
If everybody adopts a "do the opposite of anything Mike Hearn suggests" policy, then they've just shut their brain off and given complete control over their decision making to Mike Hearn.

It's a great way to achieve the opposite of the stated goal.
Pages: « 1 ... 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!