Bitcoin Forum
December 06, 2016, 10:32:05 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Poll
Question: Will you support Gavin's new block size limit hard fork of 8MB by January 1, 2016 then doubling every 2 years?
1.  yes
2.  no

Pages: « 1 ... 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 1804990 times)
awemany
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 28


View Profile
August 17, 2015, 09:39:49 PM
 #31021

[...]

I think your second post got auto-modded because it was a repeat submission made quickly after your first.  If you post it again now, I bet it will work.  I experienced a similar problem yesterday.  

I hope you are right and I don't get banned from bitcoin_uncensored even for spamming Cheesy

Reposted: https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoin_uncensored/comments/3hd6rj/new_blocksize_bip_user_configurable_maximum_block/

EDIT: It vanished again from 'NEW'?! That is some serious misconfiguration of SPAM filters or something. Peter, can you try posting this?
1481020325
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481020325

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481020325
Reply with quote  #2

1481020325
Report to moderator
1481020325
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481020325

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481020325
Reply with quote  #2

1481020325
Report to moderator
1481020325
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481020325

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481020325
Reply with quote  #2

1481020325
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
sickpig
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106


View Profile
August 17, 2015, 09:49:21 PM
 #31022

In the meantime on another thread gmaxwell commented on, supposedly, Satoshi's last email sent to btc-dev mailing list(1)

The node incentives thing doesn't seem technically feasable. Or rather, the system had that built in but it was undermined by pooled mining.  We now know how to avoid any _need_ to run pooled mining now, but it's always less costly to do so (due to the costs of running a node).

He was referring to this particular Satoshi's (?) statement "I suspect we need a better incentive for users to run nodes instead of relying solely on altruism".

Maybe I'm too naive but I can't see why Justus' idea based on micropayment channels(2)  shouldn't be "technically feasible".

Secondly, even if we found a way to decrease the cost of running a node to 0, this wouldn't remove pooled mining.
 
The main two factor that are limiting solo mining are: operational node cost and variance.

i.e. people join a pool to reduce variance rather than limit cost, especially if they represent a tiny fraction of the total hashing power.  

(1) http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-August/010238.html
(2) https://bitcoinism.liberty.me/economic-fallacies-and-the-block-size-limit-part-2-price-discovery/

Bitcoin is a participatory system which ought to respect the right of self determinism of all of its users - Gregory Maxwell.
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 938



View Profile
August 17, 2015, 10:00:30 PM
 #31023

EDIT: It vanished again from 'NEW'?! That is some serious misconfiguration of SPAM filters or something. Peter, can you try posting this?

Yup, I'm just modifying the post to go along with it and then will submit...

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

Activity: 28


View Profile
August 17, 2015, 10:12:27 PM
 #31024

EDIT: It vanished again from 'NEW'?! That is some serious misconfiguration of SPAM filters or something. Peter, can you try posting this?

Yup, I'm just modifying the post to go along with it and then will submit...

Cool, thank you!
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 17, 2015, 10:23:24 PM
 #31025

all Heil iCEBREAKER!:

http://captiongenerator.com/55117/Blockstream-Status-Update
megadeth
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 155

bagholder since 2013


View Profile
August 17, 2015, 10:47:35 PM
 #31026

The banksters are trying to divide and rule, Antifragile honeybadger gets stronger.

bagholder since 2013
My sig space is not for sale.
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 938



View Profile
August 17, 2015, 10:49:41 PM
 #31027

EDIT: It vanished again from 'NEW'?! That is some serious misconfiguration of SPAM filters or something. Peter, can you try posting this?

Yup, I'm just modifying the post to go along with it and then will submit...

Cool, thank you!

OK all done:

https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3hdgdt/a_block_size_limit_was_never_part_of_satoshis/

https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoin_uncensored/comments/3hdeqs/a_block_size_limit_was_never_part_of_satoshis/

EDIT: Strange.  Neither of my submissions are showing up either if you search in "new."


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

Activity: 28


View Profile
August 17, 2015, 10:54:58 PM
 #31028


Thank you, now I need to read all what you wrote there Smiley

With regards to them showing up nowhere: This is indeed getting strange. I was eagerly waiting and I admit I repeatedly reloaded bitcoinxt and bitcoin_uncensored. Nothing shows up.

It is probably too early to be this paranoid, but: Are we getting played and strung along by people even more hideous than we can imagine? Pulling us into essentially dead and controlled subreddits? Can anyone with subreddit experience explain this?
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 17, 2015, 10:58:23 PM
 #31029


Thank you, now I need to read all what you wrote there Smiley

With regards to them showing up nowhere: This is indeed getting strange. I was eagerly waiting and I admit I repeatedly reloaded bitcoinxt and bitcoin_uncensored. Nothing shows up.

It is probably too early to be this paranoid, but: Are we getting played and strung along by people even more hideous than we can imagine? Pulling us into essentially dead and controlled subreddits? Can anyone with subreddit experience explain this?

that would be hard to believe as Mike, Statoshi, and some guy i don't know Andy Rowe are mods at Bitcoinxt.  you should pm them.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 17, 2015, 10:59:54 PM
 #31030

596

about to break 600
awemany
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 28


View Profile
August 17, 2015, 11:03:29 PM
 #31031

[...]
Thank you, now I need to read all what you wrote there Smiley

With regards to them showing up nowhere: This is indeed getting strange. I was eagerly waiting and I admit I repeatedly reloaded bitcoinxt and bitcoin_uncensored. Nothing shows up.

It is probably too early to be this paranoid, but: Are we getting played and strung along by people even more hideous than we can imagine? Pulling us into essentially dead and controlled subreddits? Can anyone with subreddit experience explain this?

that would be hard to believe as Mike, Statoshi, and some guy i don't know Andy Rowe are mods at Bitcoinxt.  you should pm them.

Yes, that's a very good point Smiley I just did that, messaged /r/bitcoinxt and u/fast5alive for /r/bitcoin_uncensored (the latter because I simply forgot that messaging all mods of a subreddit exists as a functionality).

Probably just kinks to be ironed out. Interesting times!

EDIT: bitcoin_uncensored is approved. Just got this:

   from fast5alive sent a minute ago

   yes, the pdf link triggered automod. I've approved it. thanks!
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1974


View Profile
August 17, 2015, 11:11:32 PM
 #31032


To my knowledge, I was the first person to suggest faking out the XT node count with a patch here on trolltalk.  It's a relatively obvious attack, though, so I'm sure that some people had thought of it before.

The counter would be for Hearn to release closed source binaries containing a magic number so that he (alone) could judge when the count of real XT nodes was high enough to start producing bigger blocks and fork the blockchain.  That will allow him to do it on his schedule and his group of friends to make some big bucks whether XT is DOA or not.  And/or he could syncronize it with an event in the mainstream economic system.

It will be interesting to know how many of cypherdoc's minions are willing to run a closed-source precompiled binary.  Of course since most of these nodes are just cranking away as VM's sharing a same processor just to build up a count, it doesn't matter much.  Even cypherdoc would not be stupid enough to have actual BTC on them.


xeretix
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 12


View Profile
August 17, 2015, 11:24:28 PM
 #31033

....
Are we getting played and strung along by people even more hideous than we can imagine? ...

Matilda Briggs was not the name of a young woman, Watson, ...
It was a ship which is associated with the giant rat of Sumatra, a story for which the world is not yet prepared.
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330



View Profile
August 17, 2015, 11:41:24 PM
 #31034


Thank you, now I need to read all what you wrote there Smiley

With regards to them showing up nowhere: This is indeed getting strange. I was eagerly waiting and I admit I repeatedly reloaded bitcoinxt and bitcoin_uncensored. Nothing shows up.

It is probably too early to be this paranoid, but: Are we getting played and strung along by people even more hideous than we can imagine? Pulling us into essentially dead and controlled subreddits? Can anyone with subreddit experience explain this?

On a related note Reddit will remove moderators if they have used their position for kickbacks or financial gain, does anyone know a for profit business that has contributed to any of the mods or any of the mods businesses?

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
smoothie
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1834


LEALANA Monero Physical Silver Coins


View Profile
August 17, 2015, 11:56:06 PM
 #31035


I think Erdogan's insight into the game theory behind the block size limit was correct.

But to recognize his insight, I think we need to stop thinking in terms of "valid blocks" and start thinking in terms of "valid transactions."  All blocks that are composed exclusively of valid transactions are valid.  

Now instead of thinking that only Core and XT exist, imagine that there are dozens (and in the future possibly hundreds) of competing implementations of Bitcoin.  Each implementation has its own rules for what block size it will build upon.  From this viewpoint, the "effective limit" is the size of the largest block that's ever been included in the Blockchain.  If a miner wants to create a larger block (e.g., to collect more fees), then he has to weigh the chances that his block is orphaned with his desire to create a larger block.  If we imagine that the block size limit across the network forms some distribution as shown in the chart labelled "NEW THINKING" below, then, since the miner can't be 100% sure what this distribution is, it is rational for him to use the tip-toe method to minimize risk.



I think this is confusing a protocol enforced "limit" and market preferences.

There can not be disagreement on the protocol enforced limit, which is what your right hand graph shows. If there was then miners that issued larger blocks will get forked off of every miner with a lower limit.

I think the current situation is also more representative of the right hand side graph, than the left. Today all miners have a fixed protocol limit of 1MB, but many have preferences for smaller blocks. For example the stress tests showed just how many still had the 750KB soft limit in place. So we in practice have the right hand graph today.

What is needed instead is to get rid of the protocol limit in practice (maybe keep a high water anti-spam limit which is what the 1MB was/is), while letting the market show it's preferences. This would be like a combination of the two graphs where an anti-spam limit is far off to the right of the graph, and below that miners show a range of preferences on block sizes they are willing to both issue and accept, which looks like your graph on the right.

This situation probably leads to a loose and dynamic form of market consensus on sizes. Miners that decided to only accept blocks well below most other miners' preference risk being orphaned at a higher rate and so are forced to up the size they accept to better match other miners. At the same time miners that issue blocks larger than what most other miners are willing to build on also risk being orphaned at a higher rate. The result is miners are forced by market pressures to move towards a consensus.

This is where we should be and the hard protocol limit prevents the market from properly functioning.

What "many" have preferences for smaller blocks specifically? Who?


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

            ,╓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.
 
awemany
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 28


View Profile
August 18, 2015, 12:34:38 AM
 #31036

More kinks to iron out. Peter R.'s submission dropped off the 'news' page of /r/bitcoin_uncensored again, complete and suddenly - as opposed to just slowly moving down under the influx of new posts.

Weird.

EDIT: Back up again. Here's the mod replying to my question for the 2nd auto(?)mod:

    from SatoshisGhost [-1][M] via /r/bitcoin_uncensored/ sent a minute ago

    I just approved it. Not sure what happened before. Please confirm you see it now.

    permalinkreportblock usermark unreadreplyfull comments

rocks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1153


View Profile
August 18, 2015, 12:39:34 AM
 #31037


I think Erdogan's insight into the game theory behind the block size limit was correct.

But to recognize his insight, I think we need to stop thinking in terms of "valid blocks" and start thinking in terms of "valid transactions."  All blocks that are composed exclusively of valid transactions are valid.  

Now instead of thinking that only Core and XT exist, imagine that there are dozens (and in the future possibly hundreds) of competing implementations of Bitcoin.  Each implementation has its own rules for what block size it will build upon.  From this viewpoint, the "effective limit" is the size of the largest block that's ever been included in the Blockchain.  If a miner wants to create a larger block (e.g., to collect more fees), then he has to weigh the chances that his block is orphaned with his desire to create a larger block.  If we imagine that the block size limit across the network forms some distribution as shown in the chart labelled "NEW THINKING" below, then, since the miner can't be 100% sure what this distribution is, it is rational for him to use the tip-toe method to minimize risk.



I think this is confusing a protocol enforced "limit" and market preferences.

There can not be disagreement on the protocol enforced limit, which is what your right hand graph shows. If there was then miners that issued larger blocks will get forked off of every miner with a lower limit.

I think the current situation is also more representative of the right hand side graph, than the left. Today all miners have a fixed protocol limit of 1MB, but many have preferences for smaller blocks. For example the stress tests showed just how many still had the 750KB soft limit in place. So we in practice have the right hand graph today.

What is needed instead is to get rid of the protocol limit in practice (maybe keep a high water anti-spam limit which is what the 1MB was/is), while letting the market show it's preferences. This would be like a combination of the two graphs where an anti-spam limit is far off to the right of the graph, and below that miners show a range of preferences on block sizes they are willing to both issue and accept, which looks like your graph on the right.

This situation probably leads to a loose and dynamic form of market consensus on sizes. Miners that decided to only accept blocks well below most other miners' preference risk being orphaned at a higher rate and so are forced to up the size they accept to better match other miners. At the same time miners that issue blocks larger than what most other miners are willing to build on also risk being orphaned at a higher rate. The result is miners are forced by market pressures to move towards a consensus.

This is where we should be and the hard protocol limit prevents the market from properly functioning.

What "many" have preferences for smaller blocks specifically? Who?

The last stress test showed that many pools were operating with the default 750KB block limit in place, which is a configurable option in the core and defaults to 750K. This is separate from the protocol limit of 1MB. You could see this as a string of MANY blocks coming in at just under 750KB.

As a result of the stress test some of those pools changed their default to 1MB, but not all.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 18, 2015, 01:22:05 AM
 #31038

this threads views per day since March this year:

600500 views / (5.5 mo * 30.5 days/mo) = 3579.7 views/day

that's up from the last time i did the calculation which was approx 3333 views/day.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
August 18, 2015, 01:28:40 AM
 #31039

602
smoothie
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1834


LEALANA Monero Physical Silver Coins


View Profile
August 18, 2015, 01:37:43 AM
 #31040

602

really?

https://getaddr.bitnodes.io/nodes/?q=utxo

3   /Bitcoin XT:0.11.0/   553 (9.02%)

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

            ,╓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.
 
Pages: « 1 ... 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!